BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Turkey has elections, it is a democracy

High electoral turnout is in large part a result of turkey having compulsory voting so it is difficult to see how this statistic is an indicator of the democratic health of the country. There is also a big difference between having a liberal democracy and a ‘tyranny of the majority’ Turkey under AKP has been much more the latter. Erdoğan has threatened the opposition “if you gather 100,000 people, I can gather a million” showing that the majority and numbers are simply being used to browbeat anyone who opposes his plans.[1] A democracy means more than holding regular elections; even regimes everyone recognizes as authoritarian, such as Kazakhstan or Iran, hold them. [1] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/02/how_democratic_is_turkey
Ending the conflict with the Kurds – inclusive government

We do not yet know if this is a false dawn when it comes to peace with the Kurds. Erdoğan could simply be using the process for his own ends; either to secure the Olympics for Istanbul or to secure a powerful presidency for himself. Alternatively he may simply be seeking to divide the Kurds so making them easier to defeat.[1] As yet with no political deal or real knowledge of what the settlement might be considering this a democratic advance seems a bit farfetched. [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/14/erdogan_turkey_kurds_peace_process_pkk
Attempts to change into an executive presidential system

Turkey has been heading towards being a one party, even a one person, state. Erdoğan is intending to change the constitution is an attempt to institutionalise this. His new presidency would have the power to issue decrees with force of law, dissolve parliament and call elections, and to command the military.[1] The attempt to change to a presidential system is clearly a move to enable Erdoğan to avoid the limit of three terms in much the same way as Vladimir Putin did by switching jobs. A presidential system is not bad in principle but it should not be simply used as a vehicle for a particular politician. Moreover any change of such a magnitude in a democratic country should be done only with popular consent – something that this change does not have. In a February 2013 poll 65.8% of Turks favoured keeping the parliamentary system and only 21.2% were in favour of a change to a presidential system.[2] [1] The Editors, ‘Erdogan Shows Why Turkey Shouldn’t Give Him More Power’, Bloomberg, 3 June 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/erdogan-shows-why-turkey-shouldn-t-give-him-more-power.html [2] ‘Majority of Turks against switch to presidential system, survey reveals’, Today’s Zaman, 19 February 2013, http://todayszaman.com/news-307497-majority-of-turks-against-switch-to-presidential-system-survey-reveals.html
Railroading without consultation

The trigger for the rioting; construction projects building over a park and a square are a good analogy for the government as a whole. The AKP government does not care for public opinion and is happy to push through projects without reference to it. In the case of Taksim square the government did not consult about plans to bulldoze the park despite it being the site of a massacre in 1977 making it a place of historical significance. A court ruling to stop construction was also ignored.[1] It is the same with legislation, the controversial changes to alcohol laws were only proposed a month before they were passed and debate was limited to two days,[2] while some important business particularly involving day to day running of foreign and defence has very little oversight.[3] [1] Yackley, Ayla Jean, ‘Insight: Simmering anger at Erdogan's authoritarianism boils over in Turkey’, Reuters, 2 June 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-turkey-protests-insight-idUSBRE9510DJ20130602 [2] Resneck, Jacob, ‘Anti-alcohol bill leaves many Turks dispirited’, USA Today, 29 May 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/28/turkey-alcohol/2366649/ [3] ‘Turkey Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (T.B.M.M) (Grand National Assembly of Turkey)’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009, http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2323_F.htm#conpoletr
Turkey has elections, it is a democracy

The most fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to influence their government. In almost all democracies this is done through elections to parliament. This is the case in Turkey. There was general acceptance that the elections that the AKP won were free elections. The US state department said the elections were carried out “in a free and fair manner”[1] while the OSCE election observers said “The parliamentary elections demonstrated a broad commitment to hold democratic elections” although there was the odd complaint.[2] Turnout in elections is very high compared to many democracies and is actually rising; it was 79% in 2002, the election that brought AKP to power, increasing to 88% in 2011.[3] If turnout is any indicator (and clearly it is or else mature democracies such as the UK would not be worried about their own falling turnout) the AKP would appear to be strengthening democracy in the eyes of voters. [1] Toner, Mark, ‘US Congratulates Turkey on Elections’, Embassy of the United States Turkey, 13 June 2011, http://turkey.usembassy.gov/pr_061411.html [2] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588, p.1 [3] ‘Voter turnout data for Turkey’, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 5 October 2011, http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=TR
Ending the conflict with the Kurds – inclusive government

Democracies are only truly democratic when they accept that their minorities have rights and deserve a place in the political system even if those minorities themselves want a separate state. Only then does the country truly represent and work for everyone within the state. It has only been during Erdoğan’s time as Prime Minister that this has happened in Turkey. Turkey has spent its history since its founding ninety years ago discriminating against the Kurds by denying they are a separate ethnicity. Now however there is a cease fire in place and serious consideration for major constitutional changes that would recognize the Kurds.[1] Already there have been significant changes like allowing the use of Kurdish in public life and the launch of a Kurdish language TV station and courses in universities.[2] [1] Hannah, John, ‘Erdogan's Great Gamble’, Foreign Policy, 14 May 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/14/erdogan_turkey_kurds_peace_process_pkk [2] Zalewski, Pitr, ‘The Kurds’ Last Battle in Turkey: Teaching Kids Kurdish’, The Atlantic, 9 May 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-kurds-last-battle-in-turkey-teaching-kids-kurdish/275719/
Turkey does not have the freedoms associated with democracy

Each country should be free to decide which freedoms are important to it and fit with its own culture rather than having to fit into a western straitjacket in order to be considered ‘democratic’. It is true that press freedoms are a difficult issue but it is not the full story to simply point to the numbers of journalists in prison as the media can still be effective even when some journalists are imprisoned. The OSCE when looking at the 2011 elections said “The media landscape in Turkey is diverse and lively” for example all parties are able to purchase airtime under equal conditions.[1] [1] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011, http://www.osce.org/odihr/84588, pp.2, 19
One party state

Having one dominant party does not make the country an autocracy or prevent Turkey being a liberal democracy. There have been many countries that are considered democratic that have had single parties ruling for long periods. In the UK the Conservatives in the 1980’s and Labour in the 2000’s won three elections just as the AKP has. In Japan the LDP has only lost two elections since the start of Japan’s post World War II democratic system yet it is accepted as being a legitimate democracy. Rather than worrying about a single party dominance we should be applauding parties that are successful in putting together such a broad coalition that they can win election after election, they clearly represent most of the population which is the point of democracy.
Decline of secularism

Liberal democracy is flexible; it can incorporate secular and non-secular, different religions, cultures, or views of the role of the state. Many liberal democracies have restrictions on the sale of alcohol; some parts of the United States are entirely dry. Gender equality is more of an issue but women are allowed to vote in Turkey – which is essential to democracy.[1] Other rights however are up to individual culture to decide. Even if we don’t like a lack of gender equality in Turkey we should not consider the country not to be democratic because of it. [1] ‘February 6, 1935 Turkey Holds First Election That Allows Women to Vote’, OUPblog, 6 February 2012, http://blog.oup.com/2012/02/turkey-women-vote/
Gay marriage is good for society

Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other'1. In addition, Susan Shell believes that 'most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement can be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage'2. The presence of civil partnerships, potentially celebrated with the same festivities that surround weddings, could provide many of the same legal and fiscal benefits that gay couples currently do not have access to. 1 Blankenhorn, D. (2008, September 19). Protecting marriage to protect children. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Los Angeles Times: 2 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest: improve this
Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates

The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1. 1. Sullivan, 2011 improve this
Marriage should be between a man and a woman

It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as  there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made. Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage. 1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist improve this
Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage

To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones. 1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:
Gay marriage is good for society

Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness. 1. Ott, (2005) 2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25 3. Kostigen, (2009) improve this
Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, leading to an increase in out of wedlock births and divorce rates

The legalization of gay marriage undermines the principles that have traditionally linked marriage and the family. Marriage is no longer viewed as a necessary rite of passage before a family is started, leading to a rise in out of wedlock births. As Stanley Kurtz discovered in a study of Norway, where gay marriage is legal, 'an extraordinary 82.7% of first-born children' in one specific county were born out of wedlock; he goes on to explain 'many of these births are to unmarried, but cohabitating, couples'. Yet, without the bonds of marriage, such couples are two to three times more likely to break up and leave children thereafter to cope with estranged parents1. The most conservative religious counties in Norway, in comparison, 'have by far the lowest rates' of out-of-wedlock births1. The legalization of gay marriage and the, often concurrent, ban on clergy eager to discourage the practise of out-of-wedlock only serves to undermine the institution of marriage; and it is the children that pay the price. 1 Kurtz, S. (2004, February 2). Slipping toward Scandinavia. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from National Review: improve this
Marriage should be between a man and a woman

Marriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children. 1 Elsworth, C. (2008, November 3). Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Telegraph: improve this
Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.

Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many heterosexual marriages do not result in offspring, through choice or infertility, however the male-female relationship preserves the general rule of marriage: only between those with the potential for procreation1. 'Children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents', to encourage otherwise is to undermine long-held perceptions about the right way to bring up our youth.2 1 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest: 2 Somerville, M. A. (2003, April 29). The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law improve this
State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples

States cannot ask registrars to conduct civil marriages between homosexual couples that violate their religious precepts. How can a state that espouses multi-culturalism and respect for the faiths of its citizens thereafter declare it fair and impartial to ask a Christian registrar to conduct a homosexual marriage ceremony, and thereafter fire them if they refuse? That merely replaces one discrimination with another. In the United Kingdom in 2009, a Christian registrar was demoted to a receptionist after refusing to preside over the civil marriages of gay couples1. Ms Davies, the demoted registrar, said: "Britain is supposed to be a nation that respects freedom of conscience"1. That freedom of conscience is not respected in a state that can fire anyone refusing to marry same-sex couples. 1 Millard, N. & Moore-Bridger, B. (2009, June 22) Gay marriage case registrar in legal battle. Retrieved June 24, 2011 from London Evening Standard:
It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry

It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations. 1.Somerville, 2003, p.1 2.ibid.  improve this
Gay couples can declare their union without resort to marriage

The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again. 1 Olson, T., & Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News: improve this
Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality

Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion. 1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter improve this
Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.

It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false. improve this