BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
European Council presidency is streamlined under Lisbon

"Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty at a glance". Europa. - "A more stable and streamlined institutional framework: the Treaty of Lisbon creates the function of President of the European Council elected for two and a half years, introduces a direct link between the election of the Commission President and the results of the European elections, provides for new arrangements for the future composition of the European Parliament and for a smaller Commission, and includes clearer rules on enhanced cooperation and financial provisions."
Lisbon re-packaged EU Constitution without "risk" of referendums

"An alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty". Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "It is an open secret that the cosmetic changes made to the constitution were motivated by a desire to avoid referendums in member states. Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chair of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution observed that 'The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.'"
The Lisbon Treaty simply repackages the failed EU Constitution

"The Case for no vote". Lisbon Treaty Information Campaign - "Lisbon is the EU Constitution in another guise – it’s just been repackaged as a Treaty because it was soundly rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Lisbon retains 96% of the EU Constitution, and makes it very clear that EU law will be superior to the Irish Constitution. This means your constitutional rights can be overruled."
Lisbon is a treaty of the EU's arrogant political elite

"The worker's party of Ireland. Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2008 Analysis" - "The Lisbon treaty has been defeated by the Irish people. This is a notable victory for democracy not only in Ireland but right across the 27 countries which constitute the present EU. It shows once again the clear divide that exists between the views, hopes and aspirations of the peoples of the EU and the plans of the tiny military, business and bureaucratic elite who dominate the structures and decision-making processes within the EU."
Lisbon Treaty would lead to immigrants taking jobs

"The Case for a no vote. You'll Pay the Price. Wages and jobs". Lisbon Treaty Information Center. - "Our government should have looked for a special protocol to protect Irish workers from the effect of this judgement. Instead they have agreed to make matters even worse by handing full control over our immigration policy to the EU. We'll be forced to accept the common EU policy on immigration and asylum - even when immigrants are coming from countries outside the EU."
Lisbon Treaty integration benefits economies of EU countries

"Lisbon Reform Treaty - good for women, good for Ireland and good for Europe." Labour party of Ireland. 19 Mar. 2008 - "Membership of the EU has been a resounding success for the Irish economy. It has allowed us to grow from being one of the poorest members upon joining in 1973 to now being one of its most well off. We have benefited to the tune of many billions of euro from European structural funds. By giving us access to a market of half a billion people for our exports, the future importance of the EU to our economy should not be underestimated, especially when media reports are focussing on the downturn in the US and the weakening dollar."
Lisbon Treaty limits national economic sovereignty

"The case for a no vote. Foreign investment in Ireland." Lisbon Treaty Information Campaign - "Lisbon may also be used to limit Ireland's right to encourage foreign direct investment - In other words to prevent us wooing foreign companies here with promises of state aid. Given that a significant number of Irish people are employed by such companies, giving this power to the EU is a dangerous step for Ireland. Our country should never have allowed our country to come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy under Lisbon. The truth is, unless Lisbon is defeated, we are in danger of losing control over our economy."
Moon is ideal for extra-terrestrial discovery

"Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "Another example of Moon-based astronomy can be the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), by radio telescopes that on the far side would be shielded from terrestrial interference. Small telescopes on the Moon’s solid surface could be linked to form interferometer arrays with enormous resolving power. Astronomy in a limited sense has already been done from the Moon, namely the Apollo 16 Ultraviolet telescope emplaced by Apollo astronauts and before that, the simple TV observations of Earth-based lasers by the Surveyor spacecraft. The much-feared lunar dust had no effect on these pioneering instruments."
International interest in returning to Moon is limited

Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007: "Recent press releases seem to indicate that international interest in cooperating with NASA on returning humans to the Moon does not exist. Some, such as the British, have clearly indicated they have other plans. Based on statements made by NASA it would appear that in order for the initiative to return to the Moon to be successful, international cooperation will be required." [But, it does not exist at a very high level.]
Temperature extremes make colonizing the Moon very challenging.

The Moon would has very extreme cold and heat, depending on where the sun shines, which presents many challenges to a lunar colony. The lack of a substantial atmosphere for insulation results in temperature extremes and makes the Moon's surface conditions somewhat like a deep space vacuum. It also leaves the lunar surface exposed to half as much radiation as in interplanetary space (with the other half blocked by the moon itself underneath the colony). Although lunar materials would potentially be useful as a simple radiation shield for living quarters, shielding against solar flares during expeditions outside is more problematic.
Moon base would spark public interest in Mars mission.

The creation of a base on our small companion would spark the public's interest, as the creation of such a base would most likely take less than a decade. After this, wait perhaps another decade or so and viola, you have yourself a Mars landing. If we were instead to mount a mission to Mars directly, it would take decades before the mission would be underway. The general public despises long waits, which equals to a lack of funds completely immobilizing the would be Mars landing.
Existing holes and lunar caves can serve as basis for a moon-base.

Large and long holes and winding tunnels, called lava tubes, recently found on and beneath the surface of the Moon, can be used as a basis of a moon base. Given a suitable cave system is found, deep enough beneath the Moon's surface to protect from solar wind and space radiation in general, it is basically a base already built. The explorers would of course need to overbuild the openings and add some life-support systems, but substantial part of the work would be already done. This would basically repeat the history, as people's first habitation were caves.
Moonbase advances knowledge of human viability on alien planets.

It is critical that humans begin the process of understanding the health implications of living on alien planets, including the Moon, Mars, and possibly others in the distant future. This requires understanding - among other things - the implications of living in a lower-gravity planet, such as the Moon, and developing techniques - such as artificial gravity - to cope with any issues that may arise. The Moon is an ideal place to begin this technological process.
Colonized Moon could export mineral resources to Earth

"Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "The Moon may offer mineral resources, so to speak, of great value on Earth. Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, working with the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin, has shown that helium 3, an isotope extremely rare on Earth, exists in quantity in the lunar soil, implanted by the solar wind. If – a very big if – thermonuclear fusion for energy is produced on Earth, helium 3 would be extremely valuable for fusion reactors because it does not make the reactor radioactive. A more practicable use of helium 3, being tested at the University of Wisconsin, is the production of short-lived medical isotopes. Such isotopes must now be manufactured in cyclotrons and quickly delivered before they decay. But Dr. Schmitt suggests that small helium 3 reactors could produce such isotopes at the hospital. In any event, research on the use of helium 3 would clearly benefit if large quantities could be exported to the Earth."
Colonizing the Moon is not a logical step toward Mars

Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006: "Don't we need a moon base to go to Mars? No! When George W. Bush made his Mars-trip speech almost three years ago, he said a moon base should be built to support such a mission. This is gibberish. All concept studies of Mars flight involve an expedition departing from low-Earth orbit and traveling directly to the red planet. Stopping at the moon would require fuel to descend to the lunar surface, then blast off again, which would make any Mars mission hugely more expensive."
Moon colonization similarly important as colonizing America

"Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "To put the arguments for a return to the Moon, and a lunar outpost, in the most general terms: the Moon is essentially a whole planet, one that has so far been barely touched. But this new planet is only a few days travel away and we have already camped on it. To turn our backs on the Moon would be equivalent to European exploration stopping after Columbus’s few landings, or China’s destruction of its giant ships to concentrate on domestic problems in the 15th century."
Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic missions

"Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?"
Low-gravity Moon would be healthier for elderly

Ken Murphy. "25 Good Reasons to Go to the Moon." Out of the Cradle. June 14th, 2008: "7) Human factors. Having 1/6th of Earth’s gravity, the heart doesn’t have to pump as hard to supply oxygen to the brain. While for a youth this would have an atrophy-type effect, for those advanced in years it can serve a rejuvenative effect, as the heart is suddenly relatively stronger. This allows for longer productive lives for our citizens. And you can fly in a large enough space."
Colonizing Moon will foster space commercialization

Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003: "3. Foster commercialization [...] There is no agreement among scientists over the role private enterprise ought to play in human spaceflight. Yet already, commercial companies help build the machines that carry astronauts into space. [...] Many experts think space tourism and even certain mining and manufacturing will succeed in space if only entrepreneurs are turned loose (and perhaps assisted with federal money or incentives). [...] "Perhaps future space probes will be plastered in commercial logos, just as Formula I racers are now," Rees says. "Perhaps 'robo-wars' in space will be a lucrative spectator sport."
Colonizing the Moon is critical for human survival

William Burrows. "Colonize the Moon." Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2007: "The overriding reason to establish a colony on the moon is humanity's survival: Darwin achieves liftoff. [...] Earth has been pummeled by asteroids and probably comets, large and small, throughout its existence. The dinosaurs are thought to have met their end because of a huge asteroid that hit roughly 65 million years ago. But they also may have owed their existence to another huge impactor that killed off their competitors millions of years earlier. As the old saw has it, the giant beasts would still be around if they had had a space program."
Moon colonization satisfies human desire to explore

Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8th, 2003: "1. Satisfy the soul [...] Beyond the basic needs for food, shelter and clothing, we humans are a restless lot. Exploration seems to be in our bones. The quest for knowledge is not an exclusive motivator in the desire to venture across land, sea, air or cosmic frontiers. 'The practical case for manned spaceflight gets ever-weaker with each advance in robotic probes and fabricators,' Sir Martin Rees, one of the world's leading theoretical astrophysicists, told SPACE.com last week as the rumors swirled. 'Indeed as a scientist I see little purpose in sending people into space at all. But as a human being, I'm nonetheless an enthusiast for space exploration -- to the Moon, to Mars and even beyond -- as a long-range adventure for (at least a few) humans.'"
Knowledge of Moon extensive; colonization adds little

Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007: "Scientific investigations, discussed in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report 'The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon' define an extensive exploration program. If pursued, the program would add additional information to our present knowledge of the Moon’s early history and current state. However, we already have an excellent understanding of the Moon’s history and composition compiled from data returned from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo missions. The more recent Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions also contributed to our understanding. Added detail is only of interest to those who have spent most or all of their professional lives studying the Moon. It is unlikely that any new information collected during detailed lunar exploration will resolve fundamental questions being asked regarding the origin and evolution of the solar system."
Moon's gravity is too low for human health

"Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity: "The Moon will never be colonized for a single reason. Basically, the Moon’s gravity is less than 17% of Earth’s gravity, and people can not survive long periods of time at such low gravity. [...] Even though people could easily survive short time periods in this low gravity, it would be extremely unhealthy for prolonged periods of time especially when returning to Earth. For instance, long stays in low gravity can and will result with significant loss in bone density and muscle atrophy, just to name the two most common issues with low gravity."
Colonizing the Moon would be too expensive to justify

Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006: "How much will it cost? NASA said Monday it can build a moon base for about the $10 billion per year it now spends on the (soon-to-be-retired) space shuttle and the space station. (The agency also says that the international community will soon begin funding the space station, but no nation has agreed to this.) Considering that the space station and shuttle cost about $10 billion per year, a moon base might cost much more. The space station is 200 miles away and only goes up, never comes down. The equipment for a moon base would need to be accelerated to a significantly higher speed than was required for the space station, and that means a lot more fuel and a lot more expense. Moon-base ships will also need lots of fuel to descend to the lunar surface, and some will need still more fuel to blast off again. [...] This quickly gets you to a program cost of at least $300 billion to build the moon base."
Moon colony could be safeguard against asteroids

"Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "The bleak conclusion to which these facts point is that humanity is vulnerable as long as we are confined to one planet. Obviously, we must increase our efforts to preserve this planet and its biosphere, an effort in which NASA satellites have played a vital role for many years. But uncontrollable external events may destroy our civilization, perhaps our species. We can increase our chances of long-term survival by dispersal to other sites in the solar system."
A manned presence on the Moon is superior to a robotic one

"Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008: "Taking the Los Angeles Times title, 'Don’t colonize the Moon,' at face value [...] The Times editorial echoes identical arguments advanced in the early 1960s, that robotic missions could produce as much as manned ones. The US did in fact have a large robotic lunar program, including 3 Rangers, 5 Surveyors, 5 Lunar Orbiters, and 2 Radio Astronomy Explorers, not counting the few unsuccessful missions. So NASA did use robots in our first lunar program. But as argued at the time, human abilities on the surface later proved far superior to robotic ones."
Water is present on the Moon

According to the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission, water is a plentiful resource on the Moon. Additionally, it seems to be still forming, thus advancing the possibility that human life could be sustained there. "Scientists even hope that astronauts could one day not only drink the water but extract oxygen from it to breathe and hydrogen to use as fuel. The reports from the Indian mission were backed up by the findings of two other studies to be published in the journal Science, showing that the water may be actively moving around, forming and reforming as particles mixed up in the dust on the surface of the moon." [1] Independent LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of copious amount of water in lunar polar region, albeit its results suggest that cleaning might be required before the water is drinkable. [2]
Children would not develop properly in low-gravity Moon colony

"Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity: "The bigger problem with colonizing the Moon is the effects that low gravity will have on children. The human development process has evolved perfectly with Earth’s high gravity. On the Moon, children would most likely develop severe and possibly fatal deformities under low gravity. For instance, their bones would be extremely brittle and break often. Their hearts would be very weak and never fully develop, as well as possibly all of their other muscles too. Children would literally grow to extreme heights that will cause severe complications on the spinal cord and digestive systems, because these organs have limited stretching capabilities. As a result, colonists on the Moon might not be able to have healthy children capable of living long enough to have children of their own."
Growing crops on the moon faces many difficult challenges.

This is due to many challenges, including the long lunar night (nearly 15 earth days), extreme variation in surface temperature, exposure to solar flares, and lack of insects for pollination. (Due to the lack of any atmosphere on the Moon, plants would need to be grown in sealed chambers, though experiments have shown that plants can thrive at pressures much lower than those on Earth.) The use of electric lighting to compensate for the 28 day/night might be difficult: a single acre of plants on Earth enjoys a peak 4 megawatts of sunlight power at noon. While this does not mean that growing crops is impossible, it does indicate that it would be fairly expensive and that a moon colony would probably could not become fully self-sufficient, and would have to rely to some degree on the Earth, which would be fairly expensive.
There are too few practical reasons to colonize the Moon

Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006: "The United States will have a permanent base on the moon by the year 2024, NASA officials said on Monday. What does the space agency hope to discover on the moon? The reason it built the base. [...] Coming under a presidency whose slogan might be 'No Price Too High To Accomplish Nothing,' the idea of a permanent, crewed moon base nevertheless takes the cake for preposterousness. Although, of course, the base could yield a great discovery, its scientific value is likely to be small while its price is extremely high. Worse, moon-base nonsense may for decades divert NASA resources from the agency's legitimate missions, draining funding from real needs in order to construct human history's silliest white elephant. [...] What's it for? Good luck answering that question. There is scientific research to be done on the moon, but this could be accomplished by automatic probes or occasional astronaut visits at a minute fraction of the cost of a permanent, crewed facility. Astronauts at a moon base will spend almost all their time keeping themselves alive and monitoring automated equipment, the latter task doable from an office building in Houston. In deadpan style, the New York Times story on the NASA announcement declared, 'The lunar base is part of a larger effort to develop an international exploration strategy, one that explains why and how humans are returning to the moon and what they plan to do when they get there.' Oh–so we'll build the moon base first, and then try to figure out why we built it. [...] NASA itself can't really offer an answer, though it does offer a free, downloadable 'Why the Moon?' poster. According to the poster, a moon base would 'enable eventual settlement' of Earth's satellite—which might happen someday, but represents an absurd waste of tax money in the current generation. (No one has any interest in settling Antarctica, which is much more amenable to life than the moon and can be reached at far less than 1 percent of the cost.)"
Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic mission

"Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?"
The Moon lacks materials for self-sufficiency.

The Moon lacks light elements (volatiles), such as carbon and nitrogen, although there is some evidence of hydrogen near the north and south poles. Additionally, oxygen, though one of the most common elements in the regolith constituting the Moon's surface, is only found bound up in minerals that would require complex industrial infrastructure using very high energy to isolate. Some or all of these volatiles are needed to generate breathable air, water, food, and rocket fuel, all of which would need to be imported from Earth until other cheaper sources are developed. This would limit the colony's rate of growth and keep it dependent on Earth.
Colonizing the Moon would test new technologies along with testing space colonization.

Colonizing the Moon is now far more important than colonizing Mars now. Firstly, the Moon is a far more easier place for people to live since man had stepped foot on Moon, making Moon an ideal place to colonize first. Secondly, Mars have a more hostile environment than the Moon. Thirdly, technology preparing to colonize the Moon is far more developed than technology preparing to colonize Mars. Fourthly, colonizing a place like Moon first will test our abilities to colonize far, hostile planets possibly filled with equally hostile aliens.