BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
AIG bailout benefited banks; bank tax justified

Peter Cohan. "Why Obama's $90 billion bank tax is fair game." Daily Finance. January 17, 2010: "The banks, of course, say 'no fair.' But I disagree. Despite wriggling in front of Congress yesterday, Wall Street is the primary culprit for the financial crisis and should pick up these losses -- especially AIG's. That's because many Wall Street banks got a back door bailout through AIG when the government made good on the credit default swap payments AIG owed the banks but couldn't pay on."
Bank tax compensates for damage done by banks

Tracy Corrigan. "Obama's bank tax will only work if there's a master plan in place." Telegraph. January 14, 2010: "In the case of the UK, it now appears highly probable that the Government will eventually recover all the money it injected into individual banks. That is hardly the point. The cost of the banking crisis was much greater than these capital injections. Just look at the size of the national debt."
Bailout was a mistake, so should not be repaid

Jeffrey Miron. "Bailing out the Banks Was Wrong, but New Tax Won't Make It Right." Investor's Business Daily. January 14, 2010: "The U.S. made a huge mistake in bailing out the financial industry. Bankruptcy would have been the right way to punish the financial sector for its excesses. High profits and large bonuses are perfectly fine — they are the reward for risk-taking — but only if those reaping the rewards in good times actually pay the piper in bad times."
Bank tax is too small to impact deficit

Ezra Klein. "Obama's bank-friendly bank tax." Washington Post. January 15, 2010: "The bigger problem, though, is conceptual: Confining the tax to repayment of TARP when we've got a massive budget deficit and when further stimulus spending is constrained because no one knows how to pay for it is, well, a huge gift to the banks. There's just no other way to put it. [...] it's protecting the banks from a much more punitive tax that isn't limited to money they already have to repay."
It is justified to repay the debt

The U.S government used taxpayer's money to bail out these rampaging banks. Although the banks are vital parts of the U.S economy, they nevertheless needs to repay their debt to the common people, for they owe their very existence as a result of the U.S government bailing them out. Since they borrowed money from the U.S government, it's justified for the U.S government to get that money back, and to give the money to the taxpayers as a show of gratitude.It's that simple.
Radical Islam was cause of 9/11; ground zero mosque is offensive.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said in August of 2010: "I mean, they died there because of Islamic extremist terrorism. They are our enemy, we can say that, the world will not end when we say that. And the reality is it will not and should not insult any decent Muslim because decent Muslims should be as opposed to Islamic extremism as you and I are."[15]
Name "Cordoba House" indicates nefarious intent of mosque

Newt Gingrich. "No mosque at ground zero." Human Events. July 28th, 2010: "The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate."
Defending mosque honors constitution first responders were protecting.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in August of 2010 at the height of the ground zero mosque debate: "On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold? [...] The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."[6]
Many Muslims supported 9/11; ground zero mosque is offensive

William Engle Jr. "No mosque near World Trade Center." Baltimore Sun. August 6th, 2010: "I can clearly remember the video coverage coming in from many Muslim countries at the time. There were thousands of persons demonstrating in the streets of major and even small cities in many Islamic countries when the attack and its results were announced. This outpouring of glee over the success of the terrible massacre of thousands of innocents still lingers in my mind. I cannot forget the images of that day. The destruction of the World Trade Center and the deaths of Americans had the effect to cause Muslims to cheer and rally in the streets sickened me and I was disgusted. I am still disgusted. [...] It is a travesty to imply that there is only a tiny group of Muslims that wish to harm our country and its citizens. There are thousands in the Mideast that believe that we should be attacked. [...] That is my reason for wishing and hoping that the Islamic nations of the world, and those that cheered the ugliness of the perpetrators or those that simply gave homage to them silently in their heart, not be rewarded by allowing the construction of a large Islamic center within a few blocks of ground zero."
Ground zero mosque helps bridge gap between West and Muslims.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the head of the Cordoba Institute, which is in charge of the project, insisted that the site would help "bridge the great divide" between Muslims and the rest of America. Catholic priest Kevin Madigan, of St. Peter's Church, which is about a block away, agreed. "I think they need to establish a place such as this for people of goodwill from mainline Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths so we can come together to talk."[16]
Opposing religious buildings is a relic of past eras

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in an August 2010 speech in defense of the ground zero mosque: "In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam. 'In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center."[12]
Ground zero mosque is generally offensive to memory of 9/11.

Madeline Brooks. "Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped." American Thinker. May 10, 2010: "Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn't Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people."
Ground zero mosque is a discreet 2 blocks from world trade ruins.

As the satellite image in this article shows, the "ground zero mosque" is not actually on the world trade center ruins, as might be guessed at by the name "Ground zero mosque", but instead a good two blocks north on a smaller street that actually has no direct site to the ground zero ruins. Many scholars have pointed this out. Sharif el-Gamal, the site's lead developer, emphasized "we are not at Ground Zero." Georgetown academic John Esposito informed CNN’s readers that it “is not at Ground Zero but two blocks away.” Huffington Post editor Matt Sledge devoted a rather long essay, complete with maps, to explaining that “it’s not at Ground Zero.” Pundit Matthew Yglesias has asked where the New York City “Mosque Exclusion Zone” should be. All of this dampens the idea that this is actually a "ground zero mosque", or a mosque intended to be plopped down in the middle of the ruins site to enshrine the massacre of 3,000 people.
Opposing ground zero mosque alienates/radicalizes American Muslims

"Build that mosque." The Economist. August 5th 2010: "WHAT makes a Muslim in Britain or America wake up and decide that he is no longer a Briton or American but an Islamic “soldier” fighting a holy war against the infidel? Part of it must be pull: the lure of jihadism. Part is presumably push: a feeling that he no longer belongs to the place where he lives. Either way, the results can be lethal. [...] America is plainly safer if its Muslims feel part of “us” and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan, part of “them”. And that means reminding Americans of the difference—a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the purposes of political correctness—between Islam, a religion with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that claims to speak in Islam’s name but has absolutely no right or mandate to do so. [...] Why would any responsible American politician want to erase that vital distinction? Good question. Ask Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or the many others who have lately clambered aboard the offensive campaign to stop Cordoba House [...] Every single argument put forward for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11."
Ground zero mosque violates Islamic pledge of sensitivity

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, a devout Muslim and director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington. Schwartz noted that the spiritual leader of the Cordoba Initiative, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, describes himself as a Sufi — a Muslim focused on Islamic mysticism and spiritual wisdom. But “building a 15-story Islamic center at ground zero isn’t something a Sufi would do,’’ according to Schwartz, also a practitioner of Sufism. "Sufism is supposed to be based on sensitivity toward others," yet Cordoba House comes across as "grossly insensitive."[8]
Park51 is certainly within broad attack zone of ground zero.

The Directors of Red State. "The Ground Zero Mosque Should Be Stopped." August 2nd, 2010: "A primary talking point in defense of the “Ground Zero mosque” these days is that it is not, in fact, at Ground Zero. Sharif el-Gamal, its lead developer, is now giving interviews in which he emphasizes, “We are not at Ground Zero.” Saudi-funded Georgetown academic John Esposito informed CNN’s readers that it “is not at Ground Zero but two blocks away.” [...] To begin with, you have to wonder where some of these people were on September 11, 2001. The entire area east of Broadway, south of Chambers street and north of Wall Street was a front-row seat to mass murder that morning, and much of that area was showered with pulverized debris (mixed among it the bodies of the dead). Few of the national parks and monuments commemorating America’s historic battlefields are so narrowly drawn as the defenders of the mosque would now define “Ground Zero.” Nobody who stood within that area that day would say that 51 Park Place is not within the location of the September 11 attacks."
Ground zero mosque is a source of moderate Islamic reform.

Fareed Zakaria. "Build the Ground Zero Mosque." Newsweek.com. August 6th, 2010: "The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it."
Rights of American Muslims not subject to tyranny abroad

"Build that mosque." Economist, Lexington. August 5th, 2010: "[New Gingrich said] there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”. Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur."
Just because it isn´t right on ground zero doesn't mean it's good taste.

Building the Islamic mosque is comparable to putting a pro Nazi building in the middle of Israel or building a nuclear plant in the middle of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. All three have terrible taste and why is that? Because of the slaughter at the world trade center, the 6 million Jews killed in camps and the 58,000 killed in one day at Nagasaki. Just because they didn´t take part in the attack doesn´t mean the symbol isn´t still hurting the public. So indirectly you are hurting the victims of each one of the attacks even if you didn´t take part believe in taking part. The symbol alone can cause an unjust amount of pain.
Muslims would not tolerate act comparable to ground zero mosque

Madeline Brooks. "Why the Ground Zero Mosque Must Be Stopped." American Thinker. May 10, 2010: "Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. Why shouldn't Muslims be sensitive enough to realize that a huge mosque planted right near the horrific wound to the U.S. created at Ground Zero by Muslims is outrageous to us? They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people."
Mosque is not new in lower Manhattan; it is simply moving.

Gabriel Winant. "Ground zero mosque touches off right-wing panic." Salon.com. May 27th, 2010: "The mosque is already just a few blocks away, in Tribeca, but has overgrown its current space. Rauf says that he hopes that having a moderate mosque so near ground zero can send a message of tolerance and peace." The point here is that this was not a mosque out of nowhere, but rather a mosque that already existed blocks away, and which is merely being moved to a new location, a couple of blocks closed to ground zero, where a new building can fit the growing demand for the mosque.
First amendment protects right to build ground zero mosque

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in August of 2010 at the height of the ground zero mosque debate: "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."[1]
Opposing Cordoba House fosters divisions extremists want

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in August of 2010 at the height of the ground zero mosque debate: "Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that."[17]
Radical Muslims see ground zero mosque as symbol of victory

Dan Senor. "An Open Letter on the Ground Zero Mosque, the location undermines the goal of interfaith understanding." Wall Street Journal. August 3rd, 2010: "Those attacks, as you well know, were committed in the name of Islam. We applaud and thank every Muslim throughout the world who has rejected and denounced this association. But the fact remains that in the minds of many who are swayed by the most radical interpretations of Islam, the Cordoba House will not be seen as a center for peace and reconciliation. It will rather be celebrated as a Muslim monument erected on the site of a great Muslim ‘military’ victory — a milestone on the path to the further spread of Islam throughout the world.”
Banning ground zero mosque would violate sep of church/state

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in August of 2010 at the height of the ground zero mosque debate: "This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan. [...] I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right."[2]
Many hypothetical religious sites internationally would be offensive.

The Directors of Red State. "The Ground Zero Mosque Should Be Stopped." August 2nd, 2010: "To grasp exactly why the “Ground Zero mosque” / Cordoba House / Park51 is so objectionable, it is useful to consider a range of hypotheticals, in which a site of an infamous slaughter is appropriated by promoters of the group that perpetrated that slaughter. Ask yourself whether any of the following would be morally acceptable, if not simply rejected by an outraged world: A League of the South monument in Philadelphia, Mississippi. A Turkish-culture office at Deir ez-Zor. A Shinto shrine in Nanjing, China. A Serbian Orthodox Church on the fields outside Srebrenica. Or even, for that matter, a Catholic convent outside Auschwitz. There are undeniably good and laudable things about the cultures and faiths of the Southern United States, Turkey, Japan, Serbia, and European Christianity in general: yet promoting them at the very sites of their historic crimes is rightly repellent. These sites ought to be places of apology and repentance — not promotion."
Opposing ground zero mosque is part of war on radical Islamism.

Newt Gingrich. "No mosque at ground zero." Human Events. July 28th, 2010: "Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society. [...] America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could."
Cordoba House is a place of tolerance and integration

"Build that mosque." Economist, Lexington. August 5th, 2010: "In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed."
Ground zero mosque has received support from mainstream groups.

Abigail R. Esman. "The Case Against The Ground Zero Mosque." Forbes. July 7th, 2010: "The Center has earned endorsements from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and prominent rabbis, along with funding from the Hunt Alternative Fund, the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Fund (whose director of grants programs, Taleb Salhab, founded the Coalition for Peace and Justice in Paltestine and is the former director of the Palestine Aid Society of America) and the government of Qatar."
Ground zero mosque has angered and offended many New Yorkers.

"Ground Zero mosque plan angers New Yorkers." Telegraph. May 17th, 2010: "because of the proposed mosque's location, just around the corner from the gaping Ground Zero hole, the plan has upset some locals. 'The outrage continues,' says website www.nomosquesatgroundzero.wordpress.com under a close-up of the collapsing Twin Towers. The protest site says the centre will 'cast a rude shadow over Ground Zero.' Others compared the idea to building a German cultural centre at Auschwitz. 'Spitting in the Face of Everyone Murdered on 9/11,' writes Blitz, a self-described 'anti-jihadist newspaper.'"
Name "Cordoba House" is about past period of tolerance

"Build that mosque." Economist, Lexington. August 5th, 2010: "Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm."
Developers have right to build ground zero mosque, but should not

The Anti-Defamation League: "Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right."[3]
Opponents have a right to protest ground zero mosque vigorously.

"If we have talked ourselves into a belief that American liberties demand social toleration, or worse, approval of an Islamic site explicitly branded with 'Ground Zero,' a mosque clothing itself in the respect accorded to the victims of that atrocity, then we must sincerely question whether our national life and purpose is damaged beyond repair." Instead, RedState argues that the mosque should be opposed and condemned vigorously by its opponents in an effort to shame the developers into picking another, less sensitive site.[4]
Muslims have peacefully integrated into American society

John Esposito. "Do Muslims have equal rights?": "Over the past few decades, the vast majority of American Muslims have become economically and increasingly politically integrated into mainstream American society. Muslims represent men and women spanning the socioeconomic spectrum: professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, and educators), corporate executives, small business owners, or blue-collar workers and laborers. In fact, 70 percent have a job (paid or unpaid) compared to 64 percent of Americans overall. ... Muslim women report monthly household incomes more nearly equal to men's, compared with women and men in other faith groups."