BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment

When someone borrows money from someone else they are saying that they owe that person money and are promising to pay it back. There is therefore a simple moral obligation that they have to pay that money they have borrowed back. Often this promise is guaranteed on the basis of assets, for an individual this often means using the house as security for the loan, if the borrower defaults on the loan then they have to give up that asset. With government lending that security is provided in two ways; first through the country's assets such as nationalised companies, infrastructure, and ultimately the land, and second through the people based on the assumption that the government can always raise more money through taxation. Government debt therefore is backed broadly by the nation. It is then the government’s responsibility to pay back those debts.
There still needs to be austerity to get into primary surplus

Whether there is a bailout or forgiveness it is still necessary for the debtor nation to tackle the underlying cause of the debt they still need to get their budget into surplus. If the debt is simply forgiven and the nation is still running deficits then they will simply be quickly rebuilding those debts and get back into the same problem. Spain is a good example of this in 2007 it was in budget surplus and had debt of a mere 36.2% meaning that it has got itself into crisis in just five years running deficits of aroun10% of GDP, forgive its loans and if the deficits remain so high it would simply be a short break before the same crisis broke out again.[1] The situation is even worse if the lenders are then unwilling to lend as a result of having been burnt as the government then won't be able to pay their bills and government will effectively shut down with consequences far worse than austerity. A bailout on the other hand ensures that lenders keep lending as they are still going to get their money back. [1] ‘In graphics: Eurozone crisis’, BBC News, 27 September 2012
Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.

Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity.[1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th.[2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide[3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU. [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?dlid=186414 [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders, http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/frances-armenian-genocide-law/
Turkey must recognize Cyprus.

The biggest problem facing Turkey that will prevent its entry to the European Union is that it does not recognize Cyprus, a state that is already an EU member. It is clear that Cyprus and relations with it are the main sticking point as the EU President Van Rompuy has admitted “Were it not for some challenges from one of the members of the European Union, Cyprus, we would have made more progress when it comes to Turkey, I acknowledge that negotiations on enlargement are stalled for the time being because one of the members of the club has problems with the process.”[1] Negotiations towards reunification of the island have stalled since the EU backed UN peace plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in 2004 just before they joined the EU. Neither Cyprus nor Turkey are willing to take any possible steps that would help build confidence and break down the barriers to agreement such as reopening ports and airports.[2] [1] Neuger, James G., ‘Turkey’s EU Bid Is ‘Stalled,’ Cyprus to Blame, Van Rompuy Says’, Bloomberg, 5 September 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/turkey-s-eu-bid-is-stalled-cyprus-to-blame-van-rompuy-says.html [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/cyprus/B61-cyprus-six-steps-toward-a-settlement.aspx
The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.

Turkey may have a growing economy, but this does not make it a good candidate for EU membership. Despite its growth there is still a lot of poverty in Turkey. Its GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU.[1] When looking at Turkey, everyone thinks of Istanbul, forgetting the other ‘’invisible’’ Turkey, where there are major economic problems, such as unemployment, low wages, bad infrastructure and high immigration rates.[2] [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html [2] Daily News. Economy. Number of poor people increasing in Turkey. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=number-of-poor-people-increases-in-turkey-2011-01-06 Accessed on September 3, 2012.
Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.

Turkey today only has 3% of its total territory located on the European continent making it dubious that it counts as European geographically[1]. The core of Turkey is located geographically in Asia Minor. Turkish culture has little connection with the cultures of the other members of the European Union. This is a result of its culture deriving from a tradition as an Islamic state whereas the members of the European Union all have histories as Christian states meaning there are less shared values between Turkey and EU members than EU members have between themselves. [1] Geography of Turkey. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Turkey  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.
Strategic position and energy benefits

False, the EU values are present in Greece for more than three decades, but problems related with their traditional way of life are persisting more and more, knowing the fact that Greece and Turkey are sharing more or less the same cultural values. Not even to mention the cases of Bulgaria and Romania which have not changed in any way, surprisingly they are getting even worse than before. By citing the examples of how the European values will attain as far as Iran, Iraq and Syria, the argument is clearly saying that Turkey is indeed not an European country by bordering those three countries and the big question is how an actual European country as Turkey-as the case is willing to promote, ‘’has to get European values’’?
Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.

Turkey has a booming economy. Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies of the world Turkey is therefore rapidly catching up with Europe and this will therefore become less and less of an issue; at the same time Europe will need Turkey more while Turkey will need the EU less.[1] While many Turks may wish to move to the EU to try to find work it is unclear either that they would do so, Europe’s average unemployment rate is currently higher than Turkey’s, or that Europe would let them, there would likely be transitional rules such as those imposed on Bulgaria and Romania.[2] [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG  Accessed on:  September 3, 2012. [2] EURES, ‘Free Movement : Romania’, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=free&lang=en&countryId=RO&fromCountryId=CY&accessing=1&content=1&restrictions=1&step=2
Turkey must recognize Cyprus.

The issue of Cyprus will eventually be resolved; one small member state cannot hold the destiny of 550 million people hostage indefinitely.[1] Europe made a mistake by not forcing Cyprus to resolve its problems with Northern Cuprus and Turkey before joining the EU[2] however Europe once again has leverage as it is in negotiations to bailout the country.[3] [1] Lake, Michael, ‘Turkey: Tilting from U.S. to EU?’, Atlantic Council at 50, http://www.acus.org/publication/us-turkey-relations-require-new-focus/lake [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011, http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/cyprus/B61-cyprus-six-steps-toward-a-settlement.aspx [3] Kambas, Michele, ‘Cyprus hopes for deal with Troika in October’, Reuters, 5 September 2012, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/05/uk-cyprus-troika-interview-idUKBRE8840X420120905
The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.

Turkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world[1]. Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15[2] while in the EU only 15.44% is.[3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035[4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year.[5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union. [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG  Accessed on:  September 3, 2012. [2] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html [3] ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html [4] Europa, ‘Population projections 2008-2060 From 2015, deaths projected to outnumber births in the EU27’, STAT/08/119, 26 August 2008, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/08/119 [5] Carone, Giuseppe, et al., ‘The economic impact of aging populations in the EU 25 Member States’, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, n.. 236, December 2005, http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication562_en.pdf p.15
Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.

Geographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’[1]. Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia.[2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law.[3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one. [1] The EU: A Community of Values. EU Focus. http://eurunion.org/News/eunewsletters/EUFocus/2005/EUFocus-CommunVals.pdf  Accessed on September 3, 2010. [2] Anderson, M.S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618, Longman London, 1998, p.57 [3] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster London, 1996, pp.144-145
Strategic position and energy benefits

There would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of.[1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on. Turkey is therefore vital for Europe’s energy security. According to the EU energy minister “Turkey comes first in these countries for cooperation” on energy issues because of its location.[2] This is because Turkey is an important transit point for Oil coming through the Bosporus from the Caspian Sea and Russia and also for gas. Turkey acts as a bridge both to the Caspian and the Gulf and creates a second option for importing gas into Europe through pipelines that Europe needs as shown by the cut offs caused by Russian disputes with Belarus and Ukraine. Having gas pipelines through Turkey to the EU, such as the Nabucco pipeline, would shatter Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe.[3] [1] Solana, Javier, ‘Why Turkey must join the European Union’, CNN World, 13 June 2011, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/why-turkey-must-join-the-european-union/ [2] Kurtaran, Gökhan, ‘Turkey vital for energy, EU commissioner says’, Daily News, 10 February 2012,  http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-vital-for-energy-eu-commissioner-says.aspx?pageID=238&nid=13451 [3] Tekin, Ali, and Williams, Paul A., ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy and Turkey’s Accession Process’, Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #170, 2009, http://aei.pitt.edu/11786/
Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.

Turkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU[1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union. The effect of this economic disparity is likely to lead to a massive influx of immigrants from Turkey to the rest of the EU, because they will take advantage of free movement of people in the European Union and these immigrants. This immigration is likely to have the effect of forcing down the wages of workers in the existing EU nations as the Turks will be willing to work for less.[2] [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html [2] Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU. The Guardian. August 6 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/turkey-eu-membership Accessed on: September 3, 2012.
Closing Guantanamo would harm US national security:

After years of detention and separation from the battle field and terrorist networks, many Guantanamo detainees have no more value to US intelligence gathering efforts and national security, and so this is not a reason to continue their detention. Moreover, there are tens of thousands of anti-American terrorists around the world. Releasing a handful of the 250 detainees that are actually terrorists but that can't be tried in the US would be a drop in the bucket for terrorism and the war on terror.
Guantanamo deters terrorists:

The "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. These are often people who are willing to die for their cause.
Guantanamo harms the War on Terror:

The existence of Guantanamo Bay is cited by terrorists as a tool of "the great Satan" and is seen by Muslims in general as a demonstration of US disregard for their dignity. It is, in turn, an effective tool used by terrorists and Jihadists to bring recruits on-board. The highly unpopular existence of Guantanamo Bay also makes it more risky for intelligence sources to come out and provide useful information that they might otherwise be willing to provide. This is because, for many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them.[1] Some of this stems from the association of detention at Guantanamo with the specifically anti-Islamic abuses which have reportedly occurred there, such as allegations of 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.[2] These associations not only make it easier for terrorists to recruit by inciting anti-American sentiments, but also harm the US' ability to argue that the War on Terror is not directed against all Muslims. President Obama announced in 2009 that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention centre would allow the US to reclaim the moral high ground and thus better prosecute the War on Terror.[3]'' The existence of the detention facility creates a false sense of security and compromises principles of liberty. The US is in a worse position to combat terror abroad when the government makes unprincipled, piecemeal determinations about the cases in which to use preventive detention.[4] [1] Sengupta, Somini and Masoods, Salman. "Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims". New York Times. May 21, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/international/asia/21gitmo.html?_r=1&o... [2] Cohn, Marjorie. "Close Guantánamo Prison". TruthOut. May 23, 2005. www.archive.truthout.org [3] Rhee, Foon. "Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture." The Boston Globe. 22 January 2009. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html [4] Roth, Kenneth. "After Guantanamo." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63393/kenneth-roth/after-guantanamo (Full article requires subscription.)
Conditions at Guantanamo are unjust and unacceptable:

UN 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. 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. 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. 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.[1] Such conditions are clearly not acceptable to a nation such as the US which prides itself on its justice system and respect for human rights. The detention centre must be closed to the US can end its association with such practices. [1] United Nations Economic and Social Council. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Civil and Political Rights. Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay". United Nations Economic and Social Council. February 15, 2006.
Guantanamo deters terrorists:

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 acts of terror.