BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Appropriate that oil more heavily subsidized than renewables.

"Green view: How to save $300 billion." The Economist. Nov 12th 2010: "Some environmentalists try to turn this situation to their tactical advantage by comparing these figures to the much lower absolute level of subsidy given to renewables. This is a mistake in terms of logic, and quite possibly in terms of tactics, too. It is quite plausible to argue that the “size” of the subsidies in contention should be measured in terms of the amount of energy contributed. Since renewables contribute hugely less to world energy use than fossil fuels do, renewable subsidies ($57 billion in 2009) are already larger than fossil-fuel subsidies on a per-kilowatt-hour or per-tonne-of-oil-equivalent basis."
Ending oil subsidies is good for air quality, human health.

"The president got it right [in his 2011 state of the Union where he called for ending fossil fuel subsidies]," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. "The president stood up for the health of the American people over the special interests of big polluters who want to choke our air with endless clouds of life-threatening pollution."[5]
Subsidizing oil companies does not lower global prices

Sima Gandhi. "Turn off the oil subsidy spigot." Center for American Progress. July 6th, 2010: "Oil subsidies don’t help consumers at the pump. [...] oil companies are fond of saying that ending tax subsidies will cause disastrous price hikes. But the tax subsidies Sanders, the president’s budget, and other lawmakers propose for elimination pay companies to find and produce oil. Eliminating them will have little, if any, effect on consumer prices. A Joint Economic Committee report states, 'the removal or modification of [one of these subsidies] is unlikely to have any effect on consumer prices for oil and gas.' The committee found that subsidies do not affect production decisions in the near term. And in the long term the Energy Information Administration explains that the major factors affecting oil prices include the production limits set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and global disruptions in supply. Moreover, the minimal impact of tax subsidies on domestic production (as discussed above) underscores that eliminating tax subsidies will have little, if any, effect on oil prices."
If no cap-and-trade, ending fossil fuels is close second.

Steve Kretzmann. "Money for nothing, and your climate for free." Oil Change International. September 16th, 2011: "It’s so obvious, you can’t really believe it hasn’t happened sooner. With all the hoopla about cap and trade, carbon offsets, and parts per million, wouldn’t a good place to start be to stop supporting big oil and dirty coal with our tax dollars?"
Hugely profitable oil companies do not need subsidies

David Roberts. "Oil industry barely hangs on, thanks to brave Republican defense of subsidies." Grist.com. February 1, 2008: "You may recall that a couple of months ago, Republicans in the Senate threatened a filibuster to defend about $13 billion in oil company subsidies. In other news, Exxon Mobil just posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company in history -- $40.6 billion. It also set a record for the largest ever quarterly profit -- $11.7 billion. The second biggest U.S. oil company, Chevron, saw its profits rise 29% to $4.88 billion for the quarter. Clearly, this is an industry that desperately needs government help. Renewables are just going to have to wait until oil gets through this crisis."
Oil subsidies essential until clean tech becomes viable alternative.

Bryan Jennings. "Should oil subsidies be eliminated in the US?" "No" essay on Helium: "Oil subsidies, while certainly not something that should be maintained in the long term, are essential to the US Economy until a viable, economical and environmentally sound alternative presents itself. [...] A subsidy should generally, unless situations do not allow it, be temporary. Such is the case with oil. As economical alternatives (ethanol is not a good example as it require BIGGER subsidies than oil) become available, the subsidies on oil can be eased as less of the US economy relies on it. Eliminating the subsidies is a very long term goal, perhaps gradually lessening them can increase the speed that alternatives can be found. Until those alternatives come into existence however, the subsidies must remain, for the economic well being of America's already hurting economy."
Oil subsidies do not reduce foreign dependencies.

Sima Gandhi. "Turn off the oil subsidy spigot." Center for American Progress. July 6th, 2010: "Tax subsidies for oil companies don’t decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Oil companies often argue that without subsidies, domestic production will decline and our reliance on foreign oil will increase. Yet U.S. production has steadily declined since its 1970s peak. We produce about the same amount of oil now that we produced in the 1950s despite billions in subsidies over the past 30 years, as seen in this graph. Subsidies do little to change the fact that limited domestic supplies contribute to the United States importing about 60 percent of its oil. In fact, the Treasury Department estimates that ending subsidies will affect domestic production by less than one half of 1 percent. If we’re serious about ending oil imports we need to transition away from oil as a fuel supply. President George W. Bush himself noted in 2005 that the profit potential in the oil industry drives company behaviors and not the subsidies. 'With $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.'"
Subsidizing domestic production reduces foreign dependencies.

There is not doubt that in places like the United States, there are very large domestic supplies of fossil fuels that can - if explored-for, found, and tapped - supply huge quantities of domestic energy. The north bank of Alaska, for example, offers potentially massive quantities of domestic oil and natural gas, which if fully exploited with the support of subsidies, would obviously help lower foreign dependencies. There can be some debate as to the extent that it would lower foreign dependencies, but there is no doubt that it will reduce these dependencies by some percentage. And any percentage reduction in foreign dependencies is a beneficial reduction.
Oil industry pays millions to scare Congress into maintaining subsidies.

Sima Gandhi. "Turn off the oil subsidy spigot." Center for American Progress. July 6th, 2010: "BP and ExxonMobil, pay lobbyists millions of dollars to scare lawmakers into believing that ending subsidies to oil companies will wreak havoc on the American economy. These arguments are advanced by trade organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, and they suggest that eliminating subsidies “could mean less U.S. energy production, fewer American jobs,” and higher oil prices. The evidence suggests otherwise."
Guantanamo Bay is supported by the families of 9/11 victims

"9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009 - "Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay."
Guantanamo detainees are being tortured

"Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006 - "There are recurrent reports of three contexts in which excessive force was routinely used: during transportation,72 with regard to operations by the “Initial Reaction Forces” (IRF), and by force-feeding during hunger strikes. The last is briefly dealt with in section V on the right to health. According to reports by the defence counsels, some of the methods used to force-feed definitely amounted to torture."
Guantanamo Bay and the threat of detention helps deter terrorists.

This coupled with the lack of a trial adds to the fear of the place and thus denounces terrorism. What is a deterrent and why is it necessary? A deterrent is something which persuades someone not to act in a certain way. Similar to the accumulation of nuclear missiles actually deterring a war between large nations, a deterrent can be created around something deemed morally wrong (a prison which may/may not breech human rights) and yet help the greatest number of people and is, thus, justifiable. The whole basis of terrorism is formed upon an ideology and stems from indoctrination. If there is a seed of doubt then it is likely that the person in question will not commit so called "acts of terror". This is supported by President Bush's quote below.
Conducting detainee trials in the US would endanger US citizens

"9/11 Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009 - "some 9/11 families said they were concerned that if the trials were moved to criminal courts in the U.S., the proceedings would put civilians at risk.[...] 'The safest place to have these trials is Guantanamo Bay. If they were to move to the homeland it would endanger all of us,' said Lorraine Arias Believeau of New Jersey, whose brother, Adam, was killed on 9/11."
Closing Guantanamo would renew America's image and leadership

A survey conducted by Pew Research Centre for People and the Press has found that American Reputation has suffered as a direct result of the war on terror and questionable policies created to combat terrorism. According to the survey, many Muslims polled view Americans as immoral. Surely this is not the image they want to be portraying when the US is trying to work with local Muslims. Of the Americans surveyed, 70 percent told Pew pollsters that they understand their country is disliked in many areas of the world. In the world and in the United States, there is a desire to see the United States change course in the war on terror, adopting perhaps a "softer" approach "winning the hearts and minds" of the Muslim world, and closing Guantanamo Bay has the potential to convey such a shift. It also can help make clear that, while the United States will continue to prosecute the war on terror, it must also preserve its principles. The world wants the United States to return to its role as a leader on human rights and democratic principles. Closing Guantanamo would provide a potent symbol of the United States' renewal in this important leadership role.
Guantanamo tribunal have been authorized by US courts.

The legal definition of "enemy combatants" has been affirmed by American judges in court rulings. This created a unique category of conditions for the treatment of detainees and constraints on their habeas corpus rights. If this category and rulings are determined to be false or legally thin in some ways, than, certainly, elements of Guantanamo Bay do not make sense, and the camp should be changed. Yet, until the notion of "enemy combatants" is shown to be faulty, there is a sound legal basis for Guantanamo Bay's existence.
Enemy combatants receive sufficient judicial process under i-law

Morris Davis. "The Guantánamo I Know". New York Times. June 26, 2007 - "Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded 'all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' [...] Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees."
If released, many Guantanamo detainees will return to terrorism

Many of the terrorists that have been released from Guantanamo have returned to terrorism. The Washington Post reported in 2005 that at least 10 of the 202 detainees released from Guantanamo were later captured or killed while fighting U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a relatively high number, given the fact that only a small percentage of those that returned to terrorism would later be caught or killed. Clearly, there is a reason why these terrorists are being held; to protect the world from their aggression.
Trying terrorists in the US will give them a forum for grandstanding

Thomas Joscelyn. "Clear and Present Danger". The Weekly Standard. December 1, 2008 - "Obama will probably end the military commission system. He has suggested that he wants to try some of the detainees in a civilian court. But trying the most dangerous terrorists, such as the 14 high value detainees, in a civilian court will give them a forum in which to grandstand."
The public image of Guantanamo is far worse than the reality

Morris Davis. "The Guantánamo I Know". New York Times. June 26, 2007 - "LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten."
Closing Guantanamo Bay would embolden terrorists

"Closing GITMO would be a mistake" My San Antonio. January 18, 2009 - "If soon-to-be President Obama closes down GITMO, as he may do via executive order as early as his first week in office, he will be providing a significant propaganda victory to our enemies. Even if Obama is attempting to derail the constant maligning of our detention operations in Guantanamo Bay, he is wrong in the assumption that closing down the facility will result in a public relations victory."
Terrorists do not deserve luxury treatment.

Many believe that due to the psychological separation between terrorists and the rest of society, whose doctrines they threaten, and evident pathological and intolerable nature of their actions they should not be treated the same as other citizens. To do so would be to justify their existence and coupling their crimes with those of robbery. Surely attempted mass murder and religious infanticide is grounds for treating detainees differently. Providing their is sufficient evidence that these inmates are terrorists and do pose an immediate threat to society then Guantanamo is not only justified but recommended.
Enemy combatants can be held without trial until hostilities cease

It is fair to hold someone without charge or trial, under the terms of a military order initiated in November 2001, as “enemy combatants.” This is similar to holding prisoners of war until hostilities cease, in which it is not legally necessary to provide the prisoners with recourse to judicial process. It is merely necessary to wait until hostilities cease. Under the same logic, "enemy combatants" can be held without judicial recourse until hostilities in the war on terror or the war against Al Qaeda cease.
Closing Guantanamo renews US moral authority against terrorists

President Obama said following his inauguration in January 2009, "the message we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively; and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals. We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world. We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms."[4]
Poor judicial process can be improved; no cause to close Guantanamo.

There have been steady improvements in the judicial processes involved at Guantanamo Bay. For sure, the newness of the war on terror and the new legal concept of "enemy combatants" makes it unsurprising that difficulties in legal processes have arisen. But, these problems are being solved, and they should not give rise to calls for the closure of Guantanamo. Rather, Guantanamo should be reformed and improved.
"Deterrent effect" of Guantanamo on terrorists cannot be confirmed.

This is mainly due to the fact that terrorists' feelings or fears in regards to the Guantanamo Bay prison cannot be statistically gathered. Similarly, the terrorists posing a threat to the safety of Western Nations are typically so ideologically fanatical and assured that their path is the righteous one, that there is nothing that would persuade them otherwise, including the risk of imprisonment at Guantanamo. A case study to show the lack of effectiveness of detaining prisoners can be seen in Northern Ireland. There the detainment of "unsavory characters" during the crisis coincided with an increase in the number of IRA members and attacks. The detainment without trial adopted by the government at the time seemed to fuel the fire of fanatics.
Unlawful combatants don't have same rights as citizens or soldiers

Dick Cheney said in an interview on Larry King in December of 2008: "Once you go out and capture a bunch of terrorists, as we did in Afghanistan and elsewhere, then you've got to have some place to put them. If you bring them here to the U.S. and put them in our local court system, then they are entitled to all kinds of rights that we extend only to American citizens. Remember, these are unlawful combatants."[1]
Guantanamo was wrongly created to avoid US law and courts

Thomas Wilner. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street. December 22, 2008 - "closing the detention facility there does not mean that we cannot detain people. Guantanamo is only a place. But it is a place chosen by the Bush administration for a single purpose: to avoid the law. Because it is outside our borders, the administration argued that prisoners held there were beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and the protections of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has now rejected those arguments."
There is substantial evidence against remaining detainees

"Pentagon urges Congress to keep Guantanamo open". Reuters. May 9, 2007 - "Defense officials sought to bolster the prison's image, saying 95 percent of detainees are connected to al Qaeda, the Taliban or their associates and more than 70 percent have had a role in attacks on U.S. or coalition forces. [...] 'Our critics would say that those we're holding are farmers, cooks or other types of noncombatants. I think if you look at the classified records, they tell a different story,' Benkert said."
Guantanamo detainees have been subjected to human rights abuses

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, to name but one of several outspoken plutocrats, is vehemently opposed to the detention facility arguing that it is against human rights and what the American Constitution stands for. In the Canadian Foreign Affairs department review on tortuous nations specific mention was made of Guantanamo Bay, where, to drive the point home, the manual noted specific “US interrogation techniques,” including “forced nudity, isolation, and sleep deprivation.”
Difficulty closing Guantanamo is fault of Bush for creating it

There are challenges in closing Guantanamo, for instance in dealing with detainees for which their is scant evidence of wrong-doing, or for detainees that have been tortured, but this is the fault of the Bush administration in creating Guantanamo Bay and implementing poor due process practices in the first place, not of those seeking to dismantle Guantanamo now.
Guantanamo is inconsistent with American principles of justice

"The President's Prison". New York Times. March 25, 2007 - "the Bush administration says no prisoner should be allowed to take torture claims to court, including the innocents who were tortured and released. The administration's argument is that how prisoners are treated is a state secret and cannot be discussed openly. If that sounds nonsensical, it is. [...] The Bush administration has so badly subverted American norms of justice in handling these cases that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a real court of law. It is a clear case of justice denied."
Conditions at Guantanamo Bay are harmful to detainee mental health

"Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006 - "Mental health 71. Reports indicate that the treatment of detainees since their arrests, and the conditions of their confinement, have had profound effects on the mental health of many of them.103 The treatment and conditions include the capture and transfer of detainees to an undisclosed overseas location, sensory deprivation and other abusive treatment during transfer; detention in cages without proper sanitation and exposure to extreme temperatures; minimal exercise and hygiene; systematic use of coercive interrogation techniques; long periods of solitary confinement; cultural and religious harassment; denial of or severely delayed communication with family; and the uncertainty generated by the indeterminate nature of confinement and denial of access to independent tribunals.104 These conditions have led in some instances to serious mental illness, over 350 acts of self-harm in 2003 alone, individual and mass suicide attempts and widespread, prolonged hunger strikes.105 The severe mental health consequences are likely to be long term in many cases, creating health burdens on detainees and their families for years to come."
Too many Guantanamo detainees are falsely accused and imprisoned

Thomas Wilner. "We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay". Wall Street. December 22, 2008 - "We now know, however, that many Guantanamo detainees never fought against anyone; they were simply turned over by Northern Alliance and Pakistani warlords for bounties of up to $25,000. For almost seven years they have been held without a fair hearing or opportunity to demonstrate those facts. The Supreme Court ruled last June in Boumediene v. Bush that these men have the constitutional right to prompt hearings to determine if there is adequate reason for detaining them. Since that decision, lower courts have reviewed the cases of 23 detainees and have found no credible basis for detaining 22 of them."
Guantanamo abuses include the desecration of the Koran

Marjorie Cohn. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005 - "The Red Cross documented 'credible information' that supports 'multiple' instances of disrespecting or mishandling the Koran there. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported that court records and transcripts contain 'dozens of accusations involving the Koran.' Allegations include having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water."
US trials of detainees exposes intelligence, weakens security

"EDITORIAL: Obama and Gitmo". Washington Times. November 12, 2008 - "Mr. Obama suggests that trying the terrorists in open court did not damage U.S. security. He neglects to mention what took place during the prosecution of the sheik. [...] During the trial, prosecutors turned over a list of 200 unindicted conspirators to the defense - as the civilian criminal justice system required them to do. Within 10 days, the list made its way to downtown Khartoum, and Osama bin Laden knew that the U.S. government was on his trail. By giving this information to the defense in that terrorism case, the U.S. courts gave al Qaeda valuable information about which of its agents had been uncovered."