Let me start by addressing all the arguments I've seen suggesting it is a duplicate.
Unwilling vs Willing
The most common argument I've seen is that unwilling is the opposite of willing. While this is sometimes the case, Rubiksmoose's answer shows that there are at least two ways to interpret "unwilling", only one of which treats them as a true dichotomy.
In the "opposed; offering resistance; stubborn or obstinate; refractory" definition of "unwilling", indifferent would be a satisfatory "middle ground", as someone who is not opposed, but not "ready, eager, or prepared" to do something.
Even if it was a dichotomy, the other questions have no hope of covering mine for all situations
Firstly, the current duplicate target: Can you make unwilling creatures willing? In other words what defines willing? is utterly disconnected from my question. Defining "willing" in no way tells me whether unconsciousness affects willingness or unwillingness. Unconsciousness may be an answer to the question "how do you make unwilling creatures willing" (in a game sense, I'm not making a statement about consent), but they are definitely not the same question.
Can unconscious creatures be willing? is an easier sell, but there is still a problem. If they are dichotomous1, "Is X willing?" would be a duplicate of "Is X unwilling?" since any answer to one would answer the other. However, that says nothing to the questions at hand. The qualifications for an unconscious creature towards willingness or unwillingness may be different, especially in a game of exceptions like 5th edition D&D. Unconsciousness (the game term) could easily say something about willingness while saying nothing about unwillingness.
This is illustrated well by @Sdjz's comment:
I'm not sure this is a duplicate because after reading the other question I can get 2 answers for this one 1: "An unconscious character can't make the decision to be willing so an unconscious character can't make the decision to be unwilling either". or 2: "An unconscious character can't be willing so that must mean that it is always unwilling". By the definition of a duplicate the answer should be obvious
Marking it as a duplicate is ambiguous no matter how you answer it.
1: I've already addressed they aren't necessarily, so what follows is just for demonstration purposes
Here's an analogy to illustrate my point. Take the questions...
Can a legless person be standing
Can a legless person be prone
As with my questions, standing and prone are not truly dichotomous, as prone could be understood to be "not standing" or "lying down" (which offers some middle ground).
Additionally, answering one question does not necessarily even begin to address the other. The qualifier "legless" affects standing-ness and prone-ness differently.
In conclusion, they are not duplicates
Since the questions are neither dichotomous, nor would either potential duplicate target be equivalent given the context as a 5e question, the question should be reopened as a non-duplicate.