BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As new members are accepted, the Schengen area becomes more and more difficult to police, thus putti...

The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area. While mishaps are to be expected at any border, the Schengen borders have comparatively been equally if not more effective than traditional borders. Through the SIS the Schengen agreement has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner. \ With the creation of Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals and illegal immigrants. The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area. \ Targeting particular groups at border controls is unfortunately a tactic that is employed by most countries in the world and one that would not disappear if the Schengen agreement were to be dissolved.
As new members are accepted, the Schengen area becomes more and more difficult to police, thus putti...

As new members are accepted, the Schengen area becomes more and more difficult to police, thus putting more pressure on members that are particularly worried about illegal immigration. Exceptions to the one border check rule are often granted and border police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of a particular member state, and to target particular racial and ethnic groups (such at the Turks and Iraqis often targeted by German police). This leads to potential discrimination and abuses whereas returning to traditional border checks would greatly reduce any need to harass ordinary people about their immigration status in this way. \ Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. For example, it is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through Italy or Greece and then continue on to countries like France and Germany.
The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided...

The EU, just like the Schengen Agreement, is a work in progress and the final goals of these two processes should not be confused with a particular stage in their development. The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. There is thus little reason to believe that this division will occur any time in the future. In fact it already covers all the continental states of the EU to provide an area of seamless travel.\ While the EU is indeed a Union, it is also a Union of States with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part.
The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided...

The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and EUROPOL, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering with the failure to sign a common Constitution.
The issue of Kaliningrad poses a serious problem as to how the external border will be managed once ...

The issue of Kaliningrad will most likely be resolved through an exception to the Schengen rules. The EU has been very open to suggestions from their Russian counterparts and it is unlikely that this will lead to a conflict situation. In any case, the peculiar status of Kaliningrad is not a reason to dissolve the Schengen agreement as a whole.
Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a ...

Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.
Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a ...

Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris broke with Schengen rules to impose stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands. Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.
The only accurate poll is the exit poll, as evidenced through history

In 1948, the American polls and the American newspapers had branded Harry S. Truman a loser. The Chicago Tribune even ran the story 'Dewey defeats Truman'. All of this was the result of inaccurate polls. The only accurate polls in America are the exit polls, and even then these can come in early, as they did in the Gore Bush standoff over Florida. Polls do not take into account swing voters, and assume that the answers received by participants are solid and firm. Therefore, poll results can be taken for granted by those parties that the polls favour, which may be the reason why parties that originally lead in the poll lose, because they alienate their original supporters through negligence or overconfidence.
Voting is not a predetermined decision

Despite many American citizens being party members, seen in the high turnout of the Caucuses, there are still many registered voters who have no concrete affiliation to one party or the other. The voter, not voting on the party line, has up until the moment of punching their ticket to decide who they will vote for. Obviously, a poll conducted a week before an election is immediately out of date and loses any relevance as an indicator of victory, especially in the final week of elections, when PR and spin are at their highest in order to sway swing voters.
Research companies worldwide, such as YouGov, which provide data and statistics for election polls provide a fair representation of the population, and therefore a fair representation of public opinion.

We already know they are inaccurate. The past five polls have significantly exaggerated Labour support - most notably in 1992 when they consistently, and right up to polling day, predicted a defeat for John Major who went on to win the election with the largest number of votes ever polled by a party in a UK election. The suggestion that polls are accurate because they attempt to cover a fair representation of the population is a non-sequitur. The sample may be representative, but even if it is 100 percent so (which seems unlikely) that doesn't mean it will accurately reflect how the sample will vote (particularly in an election with such a large number of undecided voters).
Research companies worldwide, such as YouGov, which provide data and statistics for election polls provide a fair representation of the population, and therefore a fair representation of public opinion.

Assuming that the company in question is a reputable one, hence the example listed above, it is possible to find out how many people YouGov assign to their panels. In the UK this number totals 200,000. A sizable portion of the voting population, taking into account low turnout numbers in the UK. A wide sample, including different locations and ages, means that the resulting poll will provide a certain indicator of public opinion, and though this may not be exact it is still valuable nonetheless. It would be impossible to say if a resulting poll in America said that Obama led by 4% in the polls, however, if it said that he led by 98% across a nationwide sample of a suitable number in relation to America's population, then this would signal a massive problem for the opposing candidate.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Most terrorist organisations are not engaged i...

The example of South Africa is an isolated one. In many cases, the political situation in which terrorism takes place is far more complex, and it is far less clear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. In such cases, the one most important fact is that killing people is immoral. By accepting violence as a political tool, these groups become no more than murderers, and should be treated as such.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Most terrorist organisations are not engaged i...

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Most terrorist organisations are not engaged in violence simply for the joy of it, nor for personal gain; instead, they stand for a particular political position, and often for a particular group of people. It is important to realise that there are two sides to every conflict. A good example for this is the ANC in South Africa. For many years they were regarded by the government – and by many foreign governments – as an illegal terrorist organisation. For the majority black population of the country, however, they were legitimately fighting for their freedom. History will record that they were on the side of right, and the apartheid government was in the wrong.
Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions ...

Giving in to terrorists may save lives in the short term, but is harmful in the longer term. Many terrorist groups have been unable to achieve their goals through democratic means and hence resort to violence; by making concessions, the government is saying that groups who use guns and bombs can have more influence in society than those who use peaceful methods. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it encourages others to use violence in the belief that it will further their cause. Instead, governments must demand that groups abandon violence and cease acts of terrorism before negotiations can even be considered.
Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions ...

Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions have little chance of succeeding: it is almost impossible to defeat an organisation composed of individual people with guns and bombs without unbearable restrictions on the freedom of the innocent. In the case of prolonged internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of negotiations can be used as a bargaining tool to end violence, and will almost always lead to a ceasefire. This has been seen in almost every case where terrorist groups have been brought to the negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incidents, such as hostage-taking, it is worth making concessions in order to save the lives of civilians who the government has no right to sacrifice on a stubborn point of morality.
Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements that run back many years; terrori...

The reverse problem is that terrorist organisations have nothing to lose. The threat of violence gives them undue power at the negotiating table: they can insist on total concessions to all their demands – even if they are undemocratic – and threaten to recommence terrorist activities if they are denied. In Northern Ireland, Spain and Israel negotiations have hit this same stumbling block, and ceasefires have been broken. Terrorists cannot be trusted.
Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements that run back many years; terrori...

Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements that run back many years; terrorism is often fuelled by a historic culture of hatred and distrust. In such situations, it is imperative that someone take the first step in trying to resolve the situation. In the interests of peace and of fairness, it is the government which must do so: it is inevitably the more powerful side in the conflict and is therefore in a position to make concessions. Only by taking a lead is it possible to end the killing.
There is an international duty on governments to uphold the dignity of man. This can only be done w...

Whilst codes of ‘human rights’ are effective bases for enforcing political and legal standards, they are less effective in dealing with social and economic ones. It is realistic to use sanctions to enforce rights to free expression and the rule of law; impossible to force an impoverished state to maintain Western standards of education and labour laws, which did not exist when the West developed. This use of sanctions merely lessens their impact when used for the correct purposes.
Netiquette and laws in cyberspace

As is pointed out, when these laws are violated; victims rarely take action. And when they do it makes for a laughable news item or a strange tragic but disconnected anomaly, can a women really be blamed for a teenagers' suicide because she bullied her on msn/the-net? Internet bullying is disturbingly common as is underage/child/juvenile porn; the internet has replaced the role cable as an arena for anything goes.
Netiquette and laws in cyberspace

There are many laws on the internet, the fact that they are rarely exercised and terms&conditions rarely read does not mean that they are not there. The problem with web-bureaucracy being, that the process of finding and hiring Cyber-lawyers is presently obscure and leans/borders on silliness. Consequences for breaking rules on the Internet are not necessarily legal. Banning someone from the forum they are violating rules on, giving them a widespread bad reputation on the Internet, deleting their data hampers them just as much as a legal punishment. Moderators can find out when people immediately create new accounts after being banned because they usually act the same.
Cyber stalking

most cyber stalkers are ex-girlfriends, hanging onto old love; who are not necessarily aware that they're being a problem, as their exes either don't have the heart to tell them or are incredible jerks collecting the sent-emails to make fun of them with their jerky jock friends or for feeding their own narcissism. (In the paraphrased words of Liam Gallagher "I always read/save my female-email"
Cyber stalking

There are no laws against sending too many emails. Calling a person and leaving angry messages on an answering machine more than a number of times can warrant a brief arrest, and then the angry ex/stalker is liable if that person goes missing(most missing persons are just lone travelers) Cyber-stalkers can easily get away with it since people are not expected to arrest them and are expected to take responsibility, report these emails as spam, delete these emails and/or alter their privacy settings. Despite books being written on the subject; it's never given the seriousness that it deserves.
cyber-bullying ubiquitously leads to child solicitation,murder,identity theft and all sorts of other crimes & misdemeanors

Msn chat-rooms have emerged as a meeting ground for perverse adults and jail-bait hotties. Statistical studies reveal that most children have bullied someone or have been bullied on the internet at some point in time. identity theft is easy as pie over a connection that is not entirely secure, hackers are crawling all over the internet universe and nobody's really safe.
In the current system, where the Prime Minister with a majority government holds almost all power, t...

In the current system, where the Prime Minister with a majority government holds almost all power, there are few checks and balances that can stop the Prime Minister from passing bad legislation, overreaching, or governing poorly. The Senate, a watchdog of the Prime Minister, is appointed by the very person it has to watch. In an elected Senate, a different party might be in control, or at the very least the Senators have incentives to pass good legislation because they want to be re-elected. This means the elected Senate checks the Prime Minister and make sure the government is acting in the interests of Canada.
The Senate’s role of sober second thought is largely without meaning, because by custom the Senate, ...

The Senate’s role of sober second thought is largely without meaning, because by custom the Senate, as an unelected body, does not vote down legislation from the House of Commons. And so the House can ignore the Senate’s suggestions and force them to pass unwise legislation. An elected Senate with support from the people would have more authority to vote down legislation, and thus more ability to force the House to consider amendments to legislation.
The Senate is designed so that smaller provinces have a greater say, as compared to the House of Com...

The Senate is designed so that smaller provinces have a greater say, as compared to the House of Commons where Ontario alone holds more than a third of the seats and smaller provinces have much less influence. In order to ensure that the interests of smaller provinces are actually upheld, the Senate should be empowered – an electing the Senate, by giving Senators mandates from the people and independence from the Prime Minister, can better protect smaller provinces.
Canada prides itself on being a democracy in which the people – Canadian citizens – have the right t...

Democracy is not the end goal of a political system. Rather, good governance and the protection of rights is the end goal. That is why Canada does not directly elect the Prime Minister; a Prime Minister chosen by the party with the most seats in Parliament leads to more efficiency, more accountability, and better governance. The Senate should not be elected for the sake of an election alone. Instead, only if governance would be improved should the Senate be elected.
An elected Senate is more accountable to the people. A Senator would be only be elected if she repr...

An elected Senate lowers the total accountability of the system. In the current system, all success and failure is attributed to the Prime Minister, and voters use that information to decide their votes in the next election. An elected Senate with an incentive to win re-election will introduce more laws, vote down more bills, and may not cooperate with the Prime Minister. The result is that Prime Minister can blame the Senate for poor governance and vice versa. Voters then have no clear party or individual to whom they can assign responsibility, and so the voters will be less able to hold the government accountable.
In the current system, where the Prime Minister with a majority government holds almost all power, t...

A Senate that is controlled by a different party or that blocks government legislation leads to two negative consequences. Firstly, bills would pass the Canadian Parliament more slowly and less efficiently. Secondly, the Prime Minister would have to compromise with the Senate on legislation. This means there is more behind the scenes deals, legislation may be less bold, and the elected Prime Minister has less of a chance to pursue the agenda and vision for which she has a democratic mandate.
The Senate’s role of sober second thought is largely without meaning, because by custom the Senate, ...

The Senate’s traditional role of sober second thought would be undermined by elections. Suddenly, Senators will have to remain in the public eye, and pick positions that help them in become more popular in the short term, rather than positions that are in the long term interest of the Canadian people. An elected Senate would have less compromise and careful examination of issues, and more confrontation and short-sightedness.
The Senate is designed so that smaller provinces have a greater say, as compared to the House of Com...

The current make-up of the Senate is a relic of a Constitutional compromise from years back that ignores the current realities of Canadian demographics. New Brunswick has four more Senators than British Columbia, even though British Columbia has about 3.5 million more citizens. In an elected Senate with more power, these distinctions matter even more. Either Canada could try to amend the Constitution to reapportion the seats, which would be divisive for the nation, or Canada could maintain the current assignment of seats, which is disproportionate, unfair, and alienates under-represented provinces.
In the current system, the Prime Minister can appoint her allies and friends to the Senate, instead ...

The Senate allows the Prime Minister to place exceptional Canadians – academics, journalists, and leaders - into a position where they can advise the government and change policy. These individuals often do not want to go through the rigors of an election, perhaps because they are non-partisan, or because they wish to continue working in their specialist field while serving the nation part-time in the Senate. For this reason the appointment process is the best way to get qualified and intelligent Senators.
We should obviously not like drug users

Not respecting the laws of a society does not automatically harm the society, if the laws are oppressive, ineffective, meaningless ritual or needlessly biased against outsiders. Societies themselves are also not automatically good - the community of a poor area may be dependent on thieves to hold it together by providing cheaper neccessary goods, so they may shelter the thieves. This is for the greater good of the community, but it is still unlawful.
We should obviously not like drug users

Sinning and Sinned Against: the Stigmatisation of Problem Drug Users The report finds that many people don't like drug users Is this not shocking that a report had to be commissioned in order to find out that people do not like drug users. This should not be surprising news. Drug users are breaking the law merely by taking the drugs. Surely we should scorn any one who breaks the laws of society. By breaking the laws of society you are acting against society. Society should not then feel obliged to treat these drug users with respect. When they show society no respect, they do not deserve any respect back.