BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gays in the military would be costly in recruiting/retention.

Argued in the section on talent, recruiting, and retention, there is good evidence that there are many members of the military as well as prospective recruits that oppose gays in the military, and who may leave the military or avoid enlisting if gays are allowed to serve openly. This would be very costly in dollar-terms to the military. And, while some homosexuals may be lost via a ban on homosexuals, and while this may be costly, it can easily be argued that this is more than outweighed by the costs of losing opponents to gays in the military.
Citizens decide if gays should be allowed to protect them

Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009: "The place to start is whether citizens of this country, through their elected representatives and the military leaders named by them, have a right to determine what type of service members best serve the interests, safety and security of the United States. I contend we do. The military should not be a test lab."
Number of gays in military makes ban unwise

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces, and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[10] Ridding the military of homosexuals would, therefore, seriously reduce the number of armed forces available to the US military and impair the United State's ability to project its foreign policy and national security interests.
Gay soldiers do not undermine unit morale and cohesion

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[3]
"Don't ask don't tell" was stepping stone to gays in military

John Shalikashvili. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military". New York Times. January 2, 2007 - "In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take. The compromise that came to be known as 'don’t ask, don’t tell' was thus a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve. [...] The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has."
"Don't ask don't tell" preserves US military values

Cal Thomas. "Don't ask don't tell, and don't legitimize." Salt Lake City Tribune. October 15, 2009: "The gays in the military and gay marriage issues are part of a broader attempt by liberals to restructure society. Social activists despise biblical morality (which heterosexuals could use a little more of, too), traditional values that have been proven to work when tried, and numerous other cultural mores. This is not an opinion. It is also not a secret."
Don't ask don't tell harms troop retention

Bob Barr. "Don't Ask, Who Cares." The Wall Street Journal. June 13, 2007: "The U.S. has fired over 11,000 people under the current policy, and in the process has lost over 1,000 service members with 'mission-critical skills,' including 58 Arabic linguists. Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that lifting the ban could increase the number of active-duty personnel by over 40,000. Because the military can't fill its slots [, it has lowered its standards, extended tours of duty and increased rotations, further hurting morale and readiness."
"Don't ask don't tell" undermines troop morale and unit cohesion

Kenneth Jost. "Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' With the Presidential Pen." October 8, 2009: "Within the U.S. military, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has hurt rather than helped unit cohesion. For gay service members, the policy fosters suspicions of their colleagues and diminishes military comradeship at a time when more and more straight service members have no problem interacting with gays. But for homophobic service members, the policy contributes to a climate that encourages anti-gay harassment and ignores it when it occurs."
"Don't ask don't tell" is a necessary compromise in a divided country.

"Don't ask don't tell" was crafted in the early 90s, when the country and the military were deeply divided as to whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The country remains deeply divided on this question. "Don't ask don't tell" strikes an appropriate compromise in this divided environment, avoiding overt approval of homosexuality in the military, while accommodating it.
"Don't ask don't tell insults and traumatizes gay troops

C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington, said in March of 2007, "General Pace's comments [against the moral soundness of homosexuality] are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces. Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace's praise, not his condemnation."
"Don't ask don't tell" forbids homosexual acts, not gays

"The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military". The New York Times. July 20, 1993: "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender."[13] In other words, the policy does not prohibit being gay in the military, but only expressions of that homosexuality.
"Don't ask don't tell" fosters discrimination against women

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell, And Try Not To Be A Woman". Jezebel. June 23, 2008 - "Although this picture shows 1 female and 4 male former members of our Armed Forces — which is more or less the ratio of women to men in the U.S. military today — it is not the ratio of lesbians to gay men discharged from the military because of sexual orientation."
Professional troops can work with gays and focus on mission

The argument that the presence of gay troops will undermine morale and unit cohesion is premised on the idea that US troops are unable to handle their emotions and maintain their professional focus in the presence of gay peers. This is an insult to the professionalism of US soldiers. As the Rand Corporation concluded in a 2000 brief on the topic: "it is not necessary to like someone to work with him or her, so long as members share a commitment to the group’s objectives."[4]
Military opinion has shifted, accepting gays

John Shalikashvili. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military". New York Times. January 2, 2007 - "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers. [...] This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems."
"Don't ask don't tell" damages gay troop relationships

Megan Coffey. "Gay troops suffer under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Examiner. October 13, 2009: "As hard as deployment is on the heterosexual relationships of troops deployed on the battlefield, it is exponentially harder on the same-sex relationships of deployed troops, because gay personnel must pretend their partners don't exist. [...] If an LGBT troop is injured or killed, his or her partner may never even find out. Same-sex partners cannot see their loved ones off or welcome them home from deployments in public; they cannot send them openly affectionate letters or emails, or talk to them by phone, or send them care packages or photos, or even say or write 'I love you' to each other--all under the stress of separation and the daily fear of imminent death."
Privacy issues with gays in the military can be resolved

Om Prakash. "The Efficacy of Don't Ask Don't Tell." Winning essay of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition: "If the ban is lifted, basic respect of privacy will be required just as when women were fully integrated into the Services. Previously, the military found a lack of sexual privacy, as well as sex between male and females, undermined order, discipline, and morale.32 Dorm and facilities upgrades will no doubt be required. Sexual harassment regulations and sensitivity training would need to be updated, and guidance from leadership would be necessary. These would not be insurmountable obstacles."
Gays in the military undermine recruiting/retention of opponents

Letter from the American Center for Military Readiness. March 3, 2009 - "When the 2008 [Military Times] survey asked how people would respond if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly, 10% said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. These responses from active duty members are not exact indicators, but they are significant, especially when major efforts are underway to increase the Army and Marine Corps. We cannot afford to lose almost a quarter of the volunteer force, especially among careerists in grades and skills that are not quickly or easily replaceable."
Many US military leaders favor gays serving openly

Lawrence J. Korb. "The Costs of Don't Ask Don't Tell". Center for American Progress. March 2, 2009 - "[Opposition to "don't ask don't tell is] shared by those in the upper ranks of the military as well. General John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy. He now believes that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military would no longer create intolerable tension among personnel or undermine cohesion."
"Don't ask don't tell" softened military policy on gays

"Don't ask don't tell" made US military policy more flexible and accommodating to gays in the military. The key element was that shifted policy from officers overtly seeking, persecuting, court marshaling, and discharging (often dishonorably), toward a policy that restricted the ability of officers and commanders to inquire on the orientation of a soldier and pursue subsequent action. It also set a higher burden of proof in demonstrating that a person was a homosexual. This general shift toward accommodation was an improvement and should be recognized as such.
Gays are only discharged for willfully breaking policy

Anne Hull. "How 'Don't Tell' Translates". Washington Post. June 18, 2004 - "The Army says the discharged linguists were casualties of their own failure to meet a known policy. 'We have standards,' said Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va. 'We have physical standards, academic standards. There's no difference between administering these standards and administering 'don't ask, don't tell.' The rules are the rules.'"
Armies globally show viability of gays serving openly

Om Prakash. "The Efficacy of Don't Ask Don't Tell." Winning essay of the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition: "There are potential lessons to learn from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly. There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was also no mass “coming-out” of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was 'no-effect.'44 In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops."
"Don't ask don't tell" does not actively pursue gays

Letter from the American Center for Military Readiness. March 3, 2009 - "Don't ask don't tell was formulated in response to President Clinton's direction to the secretary of defense to find a way to enable homosexuals who wish to serve to do so. The policy removed the question: 'are you homosexual?' from the uniformed services enlistment application form ('don't ask'); asserted that open admission of homosexuality or homosexual conduct were a basis for discharge ('don't tell'); and charged military leaders not to pursue suspected homosexuals without clear evidence of conduct or open admissions."
Gays in the military undermine unit cohesion and morale

The "Don't ask, don't tell" law (Federal law Pub.L. 103-160 [10 U.S.C. § 654].) prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts' from serving in the armed forces of the United States, for the following central reason: "One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members. . . . The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."[5]
American pubic opinion favors gays in the military

Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.[24]
Commanders/officers also cannot ask about orientation.

"Don't ask don't tell" is fair in the sense that commanders and officers alike are barred from asking about the sexuality of soldiers. This levels the playing field to a certain extent. It means that commanders and officers cannot alienate and persecute soldiers out of speculation that they may be gay. This was the compromise that was struck when Bill Clinton sought to enable gays in the military, but was met with heavy resistance. Restrictions on officers and commanders inquiring about the orientation of members of the military was an improvement over the previous policy, which forbid gays and allowed overt inquires and persecutions.
Gays in the military impinge privacy rights of other troops

Robert Maginnis. "Gays in the Military Debate". Human Events. October 4, 2007 - "If we respect women’s need for privacy from men, then we ought to respect the same need on the part of heterosexuals with regard to homosexuals. Protecting privacy in a military with open homosexuality would necessitate recognizing essentially four sexes and would severely disrupt units."
"Don't ask don't tell" costs military gay recruits

Bruce Maiman. "Obama needs to dump 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' now." Examiner. October 12, 2009: "Researchers at the UCLA School of Law have found that the ban has discouraged nearly 45,000 Americans from joining and remaining in the armed forces. That's an increase in active-duty personnel by more than the number of troops General Stanley McChrystal says we need in Afghanistan. Where are those supporters of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" who want the president to follow General McChrystal's advice?"
Minority of troop discomfort with gays is enough to damage cohesion.

The 2006 Zogby poll that cites a majority of US troops expressing comfort with gay troops, also shows a sizable minority of nearly 28% expressing that the presence of gay troops damaged their morale. Such an opposition, albeit in the minority, certainly suggests that the open presence of gays in the military will, overall, undermine troop morale and cohesion, by alienating this minority and creating a rift between it and the majority.
Military gay ban is analogous to ban on blacks and women

Barry M. Goldwater. "Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable" - "Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell. [...] Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be. [...] The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now."
Homosexuality is no choice, don't ban it in military

Many gay members of the military make the following argument as to why it is illogical that homosexuals would choose: "I wish I could decide who I fell in love with; if someone thinks I would consciously choose such a life where I am forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the bulk of the population is against you, is just crazy. I can’t help who I am.' 'Why would I choose to suffer like this?' Ultimately"[16]
EMF is not a short-term solution to immediate crisis

Matthew Saltmarsh. "Proposal for European Monetary Fund Meets Resistance." New York Times. March 2010: "'It does not appear to me to be the absolute priority in the short term,' Ms. Lagarde said on the sidelines of a banking event here. 'If it is simply meant to strengthen the European mechanisms already in place to govern finances, then it is not helpful, in my opinion, to stir up the polemic.' That sentiment was echoed by Axel A. Weber, the chief of the Bundesbank, or German central bank. 'It’s not helpful to talk about ways to institutionalize help when the question is how to implement the budget reforms,' he said, according to a Reuters report from Frankfurt."
European Monetary Fund undermines stability/unity of EU

Joseph Gokhale. "Forget The European Monetary Fund." Forbes. March 2010: "The debt crisis in Greece has European economists befuddled--and clutching at ideas like establishing a European Monetary Fund, which is likely to undermine, not enhance, the stability of the European Union." The reasons provided are that it would siphon off capital and increase borrowing costs, and that it would create a morale hazard that encourages further reckless spending. All of this, he argues, would ultimately burden, stress, and jeopardize the EU, rather than strengthen it.
EMF would not be big enough to save entire EU countries

Roberto Perotti argued in the Economist magazine roundtable on this topic: "(B)y the authors’ calculations this facility would today give Greece access to something like .65 percent of its GDP ... plus any additional discretionary fund from the pool of all accumulated savings. However, .65 percent of GDP would make no difference to Greece today; and ... the intervention needed would eat up the whole fund just for a small country like Greece. The key problem country, Spain, with a public debt just above the Maastricht level this year, would have made virtually no contribution to the EMF. In the end, effective intervention, especially when the risk of contagion is high, is likely to depend on the discretion of Germany and other non-problem countries, just as it does now."[3]
European Monetary Fund creates global AND regional system

Simon Johnson. "European Monetary Fund, Arriving Soon." The Baseline Scenario. March 8th, 2010: "[The EMF] would represent a major reshaping of global financial architecture [...] The main point is that it makes sense to have a two tier system – at the regional level (or for countries grouped in some other way, like “emerging markets”) and at the global level, meaning the IMF. [...] The regional entities would be like your family doctor; the IMF runs the big hospital. If you go in with chest pains, your friendly physician will try to get you to change your diet, exercise more – and may also provide some relatively harmless pills. If you have a heart attack, however, you need to go to the emergency room – where their bedside manner may be less than ideal, but they can actually save your life."
The IMF has neutral bargaining power

"The EMF as camel’s nose." Crooked Timber. March 2010: "The IMF usually has maximal bargaining power at a country’s moment of crisis – it typically cares far less about whether the country makes it through than the country itself does, and hence can extract harsh conditions in return for aid. But – as we have seen with the Greek crisis – EU member states are far less able to simulate indifference when one of their own is in real trouble, both because member states are clubby, involved in iterated bargains etc, and because any real crisis is likely to be highly contagious (especially within the eurozone). In other words, the bargaining power of other EU member states (and of any purported EMF) is quite limited."
European Monetary Fund would encourage fiscal irresponsibility

"A European Monetary Fund." BBC. March 2010: "A fund could be seen by some countries as a ready-made bail-out facility. It was a doubt raised by Juergen Stark, a member of the top executive committee of the European Central Bank. He said it would create a perverse incentive for countries not to clean up their balance sheets properly. 'Every country is accountable for its public finances and therefore its debt,' he told a German newspaper. 'It would be the start for a system of financial compensation that could become very expensive, set the wrong incentives and finally be a burden for countries with solid public finances.'"
The EMF could be financed effectively

"Disciplinary measures." The Economist. February 18th 2010: "Countries could, for instance, be charged an annual contribution of 1% of their “excess debt”, the difference between their actual level of public debt and the limit of 60% of GDP agreed on as one of the Maastricht criteria for euro entry. A similar charge could be levied on governments’ excess deficits, the amount exceeding the Maastricht limit of 3% of GDP. Under these parameters the EMF would have accumulated about €120 billion ($163 billion) over the past decade, enough to cover the likely costs of rescuing Greece. These levies are not so big that they make it impossible for offenders to get to grips with their finances."