BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood

American statehood would lead to significant economic growth for Puerto Rico. Statehood would mean that the island would shed its ineffective and costly reliance on preferential tax credits and more fully integrate into the national economy.  In a study by Hexner, Jenkins, Lad and Lame, "Puerto Rican Statehood: A Precondition to Sound Economic Growth," the case is persuasively made that statehood is necessary for the island's economic growth.[1][2] As an American state, the standard of living in Puerto Rico would profoundly improve for the average person.  With average income going up, families would be able to pay their fair share of taxes while still improving their net income and standard of living.  For those with low incomes, the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico would have the same access to tax relief and federal support programs as any other citizen of the country, unlike under the present status where significant disparities exist. This is particularly significant as approximately 50% of Puerto Ricans live under the federal poverty line.[3] Many areas of US Federal funding to Puerto Rico would actually improve. For example, the current 50 states can receive up to 90% reimbursement through Medicaid for critical health information technologies; Puerto Rico is not eligible for these supplements. According to 2005 Congressional testimony by Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, had Puerto Rico been treated like the other states, it would have received $1.7 billion dollars in federal Medicaid support instead of the $219 million received. Translated to monthly amounts, federal Medicaid support in the states approximated $330 per month per participant; the amount in Puerto Rico was about $20 per month.[4] The US is one of the richest countries on earth, and being a full part of it would give Puerto Ricans a lot of practical advantages that the independent countries of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean lack. The right to move to the US-proper and work there legally, for example, is extremely valuable.[5] Overall, therefore, there is a compelling economic case for Puerto Rico to seek American statehood. [1] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”. [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [4] Frisse, Dr. Mark. “Puerto Rico”. Wellshpere. 7 September 2008. [5] Yglesias, Matthew. “What is the Case for Puerto Rican Independence?”. Think Progress. 1 May 2010.
English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood

Some have made the argument that Puerto Rico should not be a state because Puerto Ricans do not speak English, and that the US should not have a non-English speaking state. This argument does not hold up for the following reasons: English is already an official language on the island with the same status as Spanish. Puerto Ricans are already citizens of the U.S., and have been since1917.[1] There was no language requirement with the granting of citizenship then, so it makes no sense to ask this question now. In fact, there has never been a language requirement of territories entering the union in American history. English is a required subject in public schools through high school. English is the only language of the Federal Court system and all U.S. government agencies in Puerto Rico and is the common language in banking, commerce, real estate and the tourism industry. Learning English as well as Spanish just makes good sense. English is the international language of business, science, and increasingly, diplomacy. Puerto Rico should do all it can to increase English language capability. But, making it a requirement of statehood would ignore the precedents of Enabling Acts of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona, all of which similarly had issues of large non-English speaking populations and gave or give these other languages some official status in law.[2] [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [2] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004.
The language barrier and Puerto Rican identity

Puerto Rico should not become an American state because linguistic and cultural differences continue to divide the other 50 states and Puerto Rico. This would mean that Puerto Rico would either fit incongruously into the union, or it would lose its distinct cultural identity. Historically the US administrations of Puerto Rico have pursued 'Americanization' campaigns there, focusing especially around imposing the use of the English language and casting aside 'old values'. This policy was deeply resented and strongly resisted by most Puerto Ricans, and it failed. Thus, after 91 years of intimate association, Puerto Rico remains a separate cultural nationality.[1][2] Furthermore in terms of national identity, Puerto Rico joining the US would result in it losing the semi-independent (or at least distinct) identity which it currently has in the eyes of much of the world. To name but two examples, Puerto would no longer have its own representative in the Miss Universe Pageant (which Puerto Rico has actually won on three occasions) and they would not be recognized as an individual nation in the Olympic games, as it currently is. These international representations would be curbed under statehood, as Puerto Rico would be required to participate in the same manner as the other 50 states, and to compete to represent the United States collectively, and not Puerto Rico individually, in these international events.[3] Changing language policies would also undermine Puerto Rican culture: the territories that became Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (who all had large and historically rooted non-English-speaking populations) were all admitted to the union by congressional enabling acts that required that “schools shall always be conducted in English” in order to ensure assimilation.[4] This would likely also be the case with Puerto Rico, and could undermine the access of future generations of Puerto Ricans to their Hispanic heritage and culture, subsuming it within the overpowering tide of English-speaking American culture. Thus the Puerto Rican people are highly independent and have immense pride in their district and rich Latin culture and Spanish language, and they should not be deprived of that culture, which statehood would arguably contribute towards. [1] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011. [2] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010. [3] Essortment. “Puerto Rican Statehood, the An overview of the pros and cons”. Essortment.com. [4] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010.
Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US

If Puerto Rico were to enter the US in such a way as to harm the US economy or if it were to become a burden to the US, this could lead to resentment of Puerto Rico by the rest of the US and hamper integration. The unemployed in Puerto Rico will at least have higher welfare benefits to fall back on if statehood is granted, meaning more money lost to the U.S. treasury.[1] Puerto Rico's per capita income of $8,509 is less than one third of the US average, and about one half that of Mississippi, the poorest state. The government sector in Puerto Rico generates approximately 380,000 jobs, or 33% of total employment can be unfavourably compared to the percentage of the economy of Puerto Rico from tourism: About 6%. The average monthly per capita income in Puerto Rico $709 per month. Social Security Disability payments are at least $790 per month. Rank of a state of Puerto Rico as a state among states based on population: 25th. Rank of Puerto Rico currently if included among states based on persons receiving disability income: 16th.[2] Even with the gain to the U.S. Treasury of taxes now not being paid by Section 936 companies, the CBO put the cost of Puerto Rican statehood as $9.4 billion in the first four years. These costs do not include matters like government and court translation expenses should Puerto Rico declare itself to be a solely Spanish-speaking land.[3][4][5] Nor does it include the costs to the U.S. Treasury of as many as seven representatives and two Senators whose continuance in office will depend on their pleasing an impoverished constituency. Legislation to increase federal spending on social programs of all sorts need not fail narrowly in either house of the U.S. Congress, as it does at the moment, if Puerto Rico's delegation (twice the size of West Virginia's) enters the equation.[6] Clearly neither the United States nor Puerto Rico can afford Puerto Rican statehood, and it makes no sense for Puerto Rico to enter into such an unstable relationship where resentment against Puerto Rico (and Puerto Ricans living in the US) will breed fast. [1] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [2] NoPuertoRicoStatehood. “Puerto Rico Statehood”. 29 May 2011. [3] United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. “Statehood Issues”. United States Council for Puerto Rico Statehood. 2004. [4] Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association. “Statehood”. [5] Schultz, Tim. “A Spanish 51st State?” National Review Online. 8 March 2010. [6] Fund, John. “Puerto Rico, the 51st State?”. The Wall Street Journal. 13 May 2010.
Countries are entitled to make what they will of their past.

Past leaders are dead and if they have become heroes it has already been accepted that accounts of that figure may not be entirely accurate as with any myths and legends – and indeed many country’s heroes are myths such as King Arthur. Where they are not as in the case of Atatürk the man is mythologised in order to help show the unity of the nation and provide an example, an ideal if you will, for those who follow. Insulting this hero by deliberately publicising their dark side is therefore damaging not just for the state but for those who believe in the in the role model that the hero provides. In a country like Turkey where the focus of history teaching is on political citizenship education based upon national history everyone in Turkey learns about Atatürk. The aim is to educate pupils “As future citizens who respect the principles and reforms of Atatürk and democracy; who care for their families, country and the nation; who are aware of their responsibilities towards the Republic of Turkey; who work for promoting their families, country and the nation.”[1] So any attack will be damaging one of the role models for Turks young and old.[2] [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3669/1/WRAP_THESIS_Dilek_1999.pdf [2] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158863&bolum=100
Prohibition of a subject damages discourse and free enquiry

It is difficult to see how discourse and free inquiry are a basic right when it comes to history. This is not an area which is going to affect people’s lives and liberty if they cannot read about every possible opinion on the subject exactly because what is in the past is in the past and does not impact on people’s day to day lives. Very few people are interested in speaking out against their own history that they grew up learning even if it does not tell the whole truth.
Makes history more useful, more human, and more interesting

The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creating a shared sense of identity.[1] [1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3669/1/WRAP_THESIS_Dilek_1999.pdf
Disrespectful

Simple ‘disrespect’ is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech and freedom of academic enquiry. Those who find it disrespectful need not watch or read that which is written that they find disrespectful but more importantly they should be open minded enough to be able to reconsider their previous views. No matter the subject if it has strongly held views about it then holding up a different prism to that subject is going to be considered disrespectful as it is challenging those deeply held beliefs. Yet if we can’t challenge and test those beliefs then there is no opportunity for change and progress. Ultimately then preventing inquiry due to ‘disrespect’ holds back societies development.
Damages the country’s reputation

This gives all the more reason to act pre-emptively by allowing free and open scholarship and critical analysis of the past. If a nation will not take a long hard look at its own past eventually someone else will and they are just as likely to uncover any skeletons in the closet as a national historian is. If however the government is open to new ideas then they can quickly say sorry, possibly pay some form of reparation and prevent any creation of enmity that will occur through denials. Japan is an excellent example of this; China and Korea are still calling for the Japanese emperor to apologise for atrocities during imperialism.[1] [1] Kyodo, ‘Japanese Emperor must apologize for colonial rule: S. Korean president’, The Japan Times, 15 August 2012, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120815b5.html
Countries are entitled to make what they will of their past.

While a country is entitled to promote its own national story, its own interpretation of events and create its own national heroes however it is not entitled to suppress historical events and so blot things out of history by preventing any competing ideas about that history. Most people learn their history through the state education system rather than through scholar’s history books so having competing narratives is not a threat to the state’s interpretation. Role models are not undermined by having some minor faults.
Countries must be willing to accept the darker sides to their past

No country is whiter than white, and often the creation of a country is a bloody event that involves mistakes, tragedy’s and outright massacres. While it is wrong to cover up and not apologise when mistakes are made or horrifying acts are committed the results of this action are likely to have consequences. These events may well be a sour point with neighbouring countries or even just those who feel that the country is not being honest about its past. Turkey is an excellent example of this. Almost everyone would agree that Atatürk was a great leader and most would not consider that his habits make any difference to this. Nor are they likely to judge Turkey on the basis of the foibles of a long dead leader. However during the period just before Atatürk became president the Armenian Genocide occurred (1915-23) which stains Turkey’s foreign relations to this day, France has supported a law criminalising its denial,[1] the US congress has several times had bills proposed highlighting the genocide[2] and so damaging Turkey’s relations with the U.S.[3] and of course helping to freeze relations with Armenia itself.[4] [1] Montjoye, Clementine de, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free Speech Debate, 29 June 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/frances-armenian-genocide-law/ [2] United States Senate, S.Res.399 - Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, OpenCongress for the 112th United States Congress, 19th March 2012, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr399/show [3] Kinzer, Stephen, ‘Genocide vote harms US-Turkey ties’, guardian.co.uk, 5 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/05/turkey-armenia-genocide-us-vote [4] SAĞIR, CELİL, ‘Hopes dim for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations’, Today’s Zaman, 7 May 2012, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=279592
Prohibition of a subject damages discourse and free enquiry

History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state. The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood.[1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied.[2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam;[3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today? [1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,  p.40 (ftnote 53) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s [2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218 [3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s
History shapes attitudes

History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” This is the case with all large scale communities. “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” a fraternity for which members are willing to kill and die.[1] This very willingness makes nationalism potentially dangerous and so it is much better to take a much more measured approach seeing the bad as well as the good. Yet because the nation is an imagined community so it is possible for that imagining to be altered as is needed. Turkey will not cease being the Turkish nation simply because views of Atatürk change as a result of some believing him to be a ‘drunken debaucher’. Other countries have come to accept negative parts of their history with little consequence for their conception of the nation such as the UK’s acceptance that imperialism was in large part negative it simply creates a more nuanced view of the past. [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London 2006, pp.6-7
Makes history more useful, more human, and more interesting

While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love of the nation it is not much use at teaching anything else. In particular it is damaging to any attempt to teach analysis and the use of sources through history. History is for the most part not useful in and of itself,[1] there are for example very few jobs directly working with history. Rather teaching of history emphasises ‘transferrable skills’ such as Critical Analysis, Reasoning and Argument[2] all of which are suppressed if focused on one officially approved narrative. Moreover having the darker side of a nation’s past both makes history more interesting and more believable and so making it more likely that those being taught it will relate to it. Making the past look whiter than white simply makes it seem out of touch with reality. It makes for a poor teacher as history needs to ‘teach by example’ and if that example is not a complex character that can be related to it has little relation to every day experience.[3] [1] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm [2] ‘What skills will a History degree from Cambridge give me?’, University of Cambridge, http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=982 [3] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm
Disrespectful

Few nations go so far as to deify their national heroes or the formation of the state but none the less it is disrespectful to attack these ideas and many people are likely to be offended. This is indeed the case with the film Mustafa about Atatürk one doctor referring to the poster advertising the film asks "Why is he shown like that, in front of a steppe? His head is down as if he is apologizing for something... I find it disrespectful". Professors Orhan Kural and Ahmet Ercan argue “The content of the film and its interpretation of its topics damage the republic and Atatürk. Damaging such values can lead to the breakup of Turkey and to the loss of national pride.”[1] This is because any attack on Atatürk is equally an attack on the values of the republic he created, some of which such as secularism are already under attack. It is both wrong to offend so many people and unwise, as is the case with the attack on Atatürk, to attack the foundations of the ideology that helps to prevent intolerance.[2] [1] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158863&bolum=100 [2] Malashenko, Alexey, and Shlykov, Pavel, ‘”Anti-Kemalist” Revolution: Where is Turkey Going?’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 22 September 2011, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/22/anti-kemalist-revolution-where-is-turkey-going/7psb