BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Amnesties are the only long term solution

Amnesty is the only way to deal with the fundamental problem behind immigration; the developed world much richer and has more jobs available than the developing world. For example the USA has a per capita GDP of $48,100[1] by comparison Mexico’s is only $15,100[2] using PPP the gap with the Central American countries to the south of Mexico is even starker with Guatemalan GDP/capita at $5,000.[3] Not surprisingly the USA far outstrips the Central American countries in the Human development index; the US is 4th, Mexico 57th and Guatemala 131st.[4] So long as there is such diversity of income and opportunity immigrants will keep coming, and this will continue no matter what the state that is receiving migrants does in an attempt to deter them. Amnesties will help allow labour to get to where it is needed, through NAFTA the US is integrating North America but it is specifically excluding labour from this integration while tightening border controls at the Mexican border. Amnesties would help to counter-act the problems caused by leaving labour as the resource that is not allowed to cross borders and so provide benefits to both the host economy and the country of origin for the migrants. This is because the migrants will send back remittances that will help to develop their home nation and they themselves may well return after developing new skills that can then be put to use at home. [1] The World Factbook, ‘United States’, Central Intelligence Agency, 15 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html [2] The World Factbook, ‘Mexico’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html [3] The World Factbook, ‘Guatemala’, Central Intelligence Agency, 21 February 2012, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html [4] United Nations Development Programme, ‘Human Development Index’, 2011, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Migrants benefit the economy

Migrants, including illegal migrants, are necessary for the economies of rich countries. There are schemes run by these countries that allow the migration of skilled workers for jobs where there is a skills shortage in the native population, for example the United Kingdom takes in a lot of migrants to work as doctors and migrants. However these schemes fail to acknowledge that migrants are also vital for unskilled jobs which native workers are often unwilling to take; for example jobs in catering, picking crops and cleaning. Approximately 6.3 million illegal immigrants are working in the USA, and these are benefiting the economy.[1] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas says “The pace of recent U.S. economic growth would have been impossible without immigration. Since 1990, immigrants have contributed to job growth in three main ways: They fill an increasing share of jobs overall, they take jobs in labor-scarce regions, and they fill the types of jobs native workers often shun.”[2] Amnesties are necessary to ensure the economy keeps benefiting from these workers. [1] Goyle, Rajeev, and Jaeger, David A., ‘Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment’, Center for American Progress, July 2005, p.9. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/deporting_the_undocumented.pdf [2] Orrenius, Pia M., ‘U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold’, Southwest Economy, Issue 6, Nov./Dec. 2003, http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2003/swe0306a.html
Compulsory treatment is not a long term solution.

Short term success is all that is necessary to save a life. Once the anorectic patient is out of danger then more long term treatments can be explored. This means working out how to reduce the fear of food and of weight and if  the patient has become worried about going to hospital then at least there is time to sort that out as well. While emergency force feeding has to be within a hospital not all treatment has to take place in such an environment and ongoing psychological treatment can take place elsewhere.
Anorexics need to be able to trust their doctors.

In 1997 the Mental Health Act Commission opened the door to allowing force feeding of anorexic patients in the UK by allowing the compulsory admission of anorexics to hospital. This change of policy did not reduce the number of patients being admitted for treatment which has gone up from 419 in 1996-7 to 620 in 2005-6.[1] [1] Disordered eating, Anorexia Nervosa Statistics (Uk), http://www.disordered-eating.co.uk/eating-disorders-statistics/anorexia-nervosa-statistics-uk.html, accessed 07/22/2011
The focus should be on palliative care.

Palliative care is defeatist and does not attempt to cure the problem. Recovery is always a possibility and that is what doctors should be striving for “In a 10 year follow up of 76 severely ill women with anorexia, Eckert et al found that 18 (24%) had fully recovered, about half had a benign outcome, and only five (7%) had died.”[1] Doctors do not often have to deal with severe or chronic anorexia. Just because it is a very long treatment schedule that can be harrowing for a doctor, this not a reason to settle for palliative care. Better support structures ought to be put in place to enable the doctor to fulfil their obligation to the patient. [1] Williams, Christopher J. et al., ‘We should strive to keep patients alive’, 1998, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1113542/
Life is more important than dignity

Life is more important than dignity, many medical treatments are unpleasant or painful but they are necessary to preserve life. Without force feeding the anorectic patient will often die. In Australia about 80 per cent of all anorexic children required hospital admission (from 101 cases), and of those, 50 per cent required tube feeding as a life-saving measure to manage starvation.[1] When a patient requires emergency treatment doctors should do what is necessary to save the patient’s life. Psychological problems can only be treated if the person is alive. Treatment for the psychological problem should be considered to go hand in hand with saving the patient’s life as in the B vs. Croydon Health Authority where force feeding was ruled to be complemented the use of other methods to treat her psychiatric problems.[2] [1]McLean T., Half of anorexic kids need force feeding, 2008,   http://news.theage.com.au/national/half-of-anorexic-kids-need-force-feeding-20080528-2itg.html, accessed 07/22/2011 [2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health Authority 1994, CA:  Force-Feeding the Hunger-Striker under the Mental Health Act 1983., University of Liverpool, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nlawwww/articles3/keywood3.html, accessed 07/22/2011
Anorectic patients are not able to make the decision for themselves.

Anorectic patients are typically treated under mental health legislation (e.g. the UK 1983 Act). They do not make a free choice because they are not rationally able to weigh up decisions and consequences, they ‘feel’ fat when they obviously are not and are irrational as they are willing to starve themselves to the point of death when suicide is not their intent.[1] The patient is not “capable of forming unimpaired and rational judgements concerning the consequences” (British Medical Association 1992). There have been court cases that have confirmed that force feeding should be allowed when a patient is considered mentally ill. For example the case of “B vs.  Croydon Health Authority” in 1994 it was judged, that B (a borderline personality disorder patient, which involves suffering from an irresistible desire to inflict-self-harm) can be force fed, even though she did not give consent to the treatment. The court explained that because she was not aware of the seriousness of her condition and she had found it difficult to break out of the cycle of self-punishment, she was deemed unfit to make decisions about her nutrition.[2] [1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007, http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSullivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatments_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_Aspirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practice, p.202 [2] Keywood K., B v Croydon Health Authority 1994, CA:  Force-Feeding the Hunger-Striker under the Mental Health Act 1983., University of Liverpool, http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/keywood3.html, accessed 07/22/2011
Force feeding can help psychologically.

A healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain.[1] [1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007, http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSullivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatments_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_Aspirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practice, P.202
In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive

Medical ethics say that a doctor has a responsibility to keep the patient alive to administer treatment. In the UK Diana Pretty was denied the right to die by the House of Lords even though she consistently requested it. The Israeli Courts ordered the force- feeding of political hunger strikers arguing that in a conflict between life and dignity, life wins. India prosecuted a physician who allowed a hunger striker to die. The medical profession take their responsibility for life very seriously on a global level.
Compulsory treatment is not a long term solution.

Compulsory treatment may only be successful in the short term. In the long term it does nothing to reduce the fear of food, weight and hospital felt by the patient and is a barrier to treatment. Hospital admission often has a worse outcome for the patient; there are increased mortality rates which are then even higher for those who are admitted against their will.[1] Suicide accounts for 27% of anorexia deaths.[2] Compulsory treatment may make the patient more depressed and at greater risk from harm. [1] Fedyszyn & Sullivan, ‘Ethical re-evaluation of contemporary treatments for anorexia nervosa’, 2007, http://leedsmet.academia.edu/GavinSullivan/Papers/255145/Ethical_Re-Evaluation_of_Contemporary_Treatments_for_Anorexia_Nervosa_Is_An_Aspirational_Stance_Possible_In_Practice, p.201 [2] BBC News, ‘Compulsory treatment ‘helps anorexics’’, 1999 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/408362.stm
Anorexics need to be able to trust their doctors.

The most successful policies are where anorectic patients feel safe and trust their doctors so are willing to go to clinics voluntarily as they feel that they are in control of the situation.[1] Conversely an anorectic patient’s fear of weight gain, especially forced weight gain in hospital is an obstacle to treatment. If an anorexia nervosa sufferer thinks that they will be force- fed they may be less likely to seek treatment or advice. [1] Susic, Paul, ‘Anorexia Treatment and the Unwilling Patient’, http://www.psychtreatment.com/anorexia_treatment.htm, accessed 07/21/2011
Force feeding strategies may cause physical harm

Force-feeding has negative consequences. If the patient is dangerously thin and is then force-fed, it can led to Hypophosphataemia (reduction of phosphates in the blood) which causes heart failure. Anorexics are characterised by self-denial and often do not come forward voluntarily. Indeed it according to Dr Sacker anorexia is often not even about food rather "By stopping food from going into the body, what they really feel is they can be in control of their body.” [1] This desire is actively harmed by force feeding as a result they are even less likely to come forward voluntarily if they are faced with the possibility of force- feeding. [1]CBS, ‘A very thin line’, 02/11/2009,   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/20/48hours/main47832.shtml, accessed 07/22/2011
Life is more important than dignity

Life is more important than dignity. None the less there is a significant difference between someone who is in an emergency condition being treated without their consent and someone who has previously refused treatment being forced to have treatment. Patients are allowed to make decisions doctors believe are unwise.[1] [1] Patients.co.uk, ‘Consent To Treatment (Mental Capacity and Mental Helth Legislation)’ 2009, http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Consent-To-Treatment-%28Mental-Capacity-...
Anorectic patients are not able to make the decision for themselves.

Force feeding is undignified. The World Medical Association considers “Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.”[1] This is treatment which the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits in Article 3 on the prohibition of torture.[2] The patient’s right to refuse treatment should be respected even if they are mentally ill. (N.B. Anorexia is not recognised as a mental illness in every country). [1] World Medical Association, ‘WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers’, 2006 [2] European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, 2010, P.4
Force feeding can help psychologically.

Far from helping solve the patient’s psychological problems force feeding is just as likely to exacerbate the problems and make them much less willing to seek out treatment, something that they are often already unwilling to do.[1] While it may be the case that when starved people over-estimate their own size those who are anorexic in the developed world did not start out starved so there must have been a different initial cause of the anorexia that will need to be found and solved, there are numerous different types of psychological treatment that can help do this.[2] [1] Jimerson, Shane R. et al., ‘Eating Disorders: Treatment’, 2002, http://education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/eatingdisorders.html [2] NHS Choices, ‘Treating anorexia’, 2010, http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Treatment.aspx
In the first instance, doctors should always act to keep a patient alive

When it comes to hunger strikes the World Medical Association says that “Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable.”[1] While there are obviously differences in terms of the objective when it comes to the consent of the patient there is no difference. In both cases the patient does not want to be force fed and understand what the consequences may be. [1] World Medical Association, ‘WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers’, 2006
Policy should not be dictated by religion

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.
The law is contrary to the constitution

In the same chapter, the constitution states that nothing within the article shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws that are necessary for implementing policies and programmes aimed at redressing social, economic or educational or other imbalance in society; or providing for any matter acceptable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society[1]. It is on this clause that most officials have based their support for the anti-gay law. The majority of Ugandans deem homosexuality immoral and unacceptable. There is therefore a democratic reason to enact such a law. The law is justified by democracy. [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org, http://www.dredf.org/international/UgaConst.html
Rule of the majority

Democracy is not just about enabling a tyranny of the majority. It is about enabling everyone have a say in running the country and about protecting the rights of those minority viewpoints. Simply accepting that the majority is always right is the path to populist dictatorship; most people can be bought by promises of better times ahead and attempts to put the blame for any problems on minority groups. Human rights are intrinsic and cannot be determined on what the majority or civil society believes. The simple maxim ‘do unto others what you would have them do to you’ shows why minorities need to be protected. Everyone is a minority in something whether it is because they are a particular ethnic, sexual, language group or the views they hold we would not want to be discriminated on the basis of that aspect of ourselves. Where the majority wants to harm the minority the role of the government is to protect the minority. The bill was introduced to parliament individually by MP David Bahati[1] who spearheaded it through the end not the large Ugandan majority and the government should have stopped it.    [1] The Economist, ‘Uganda’s anti-gay law; Deadly intolerance’, economist.com, 1 March 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21597943-diplomatic-pressure-did-not-stop-absurd-law-deadly-intolerance
Traditional and religious beliefs

The government is an impartial and independent body which should not be led by tradition but lead tradition instead. Governments don’t just exist to let events flow but to lead, to create policy, and shape events. If government never takes a lead then it would cease to exist as another leader would take its place. Under Uganda’s constitution, religions should be registered and accredited by the government and should adhere to law and government policies. The constitution recognises equality for all so the government should be encouraging a belief and tradition of such equality[1]. It is therefore wrong to argue that on a particular policy, tradition had to lead. [1] Parliament of Uganda, ‘CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995’, parliament.go.ug, http://www.parliament.go.ug/new/images/stories/constitution/Constitution_of_Uganda_1995.pdf
Not passing the bill would bring a threat to the public peace

The fact that Ugandan government did not take measures to curb insecurities, harassment and threats towards the LGBT community, shows how reluctant it was in enforcing human rights. Unfortunately things have been even worse after the new law was passed with Uganda’s tabloid the Redpepper exposing homosexuals[1]. The new law has given a green light to mockery, attacks and harassment towards the gay community, many have lost their jobs, other have quit school and some have left the country due to such threats. This all could have been avoided by the government if it were to accept LGBT as a minority that has the same rights as other minorities. Such an acceptance would be a first step towards tolerance in Uganda. [1] The guardian, ‘Ugandan tabloid prints list of 'top 200 homosexuals', thegurdian.com, 25 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/ugandan-tabloid-prints-list-top-200-homosexuals
Marginalising the minority

Human rights are fundamental and universal. They do not only apply to a certain group of people and invalid to another such as homosexuals. Criminalising homosexuality in Uganda considers all in the LGBT minority to be worse than second class citizens. Making them almost automatically criminal renders homosexuals sub human depriving them of their identity as Ugandans. The government has a responsibility to protect every citizen but in this case the Ugandan government has taken the first step in rejecting and mistreating its own people. The new law infringes on fundamental rights to privacy, non-discrimination, equality and freedom from cruelty and inhumane treatment[1]. Even before the bill was introduced the government prevented there being room for LGBT activists to explain their cause showing their lack of freedom of expression. This and rights such as equality are universal and fundamental rights that the government of Uganda has on numerous occasions signed up for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights among other documents.[2] [1] Reuters, ‘Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Prompts Court Petition’, huffingtonpost.com, 11 March 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/uganda-gay-bill-petition-_n_4940664.html [2] Organisation of Africa Unity, ‘African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, achpr.org, http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/#a2
Policy should not be dictated by religion

Article 7 of the Ugandan constitution is clear in its separation of church and state “Uganda shall not have a State religion.” The government must serve all its people equally regardless religious and cultural orientation. But this bill has been created with a religious motive. In his interview defending the anti-gay bill, MP David Bahati lamented, that God doesn’t accept homosexuality quoting a bible verse that the wages of sin is death[1]; as if the Ugandan parliament is filled with righteous souls! The constitution allows freedom of religion and prohibits the creation of political parties based on religion[2]. Laws and policies should therefore not base on bible verses as not everyone will share the same belief to such scriptures. [1] Jack Mirkinson, ‘Rachel Maddow Interviews David Bahati, Author Of Ugandan 'Kill The Gays' Bill’, huffingtonpost.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/rachel-maddow-bahati-uganda-gays_n_794271.html [2] U.S. Department of State, ’Uganda’, state.gov, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171644.pdf
The law is contrary to the constitution

Chapter 4 of the Ugandan constitution recognises fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as inherent and not granted by the State. The constitution states; All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law; Without prejudice, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability[1]. It defines “discriminate" as giving different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability. The government has acted contrary to their own law, with President Museveni remarking that what homosexuals do is disgusting, un African and had no place in his country[2] and MP David Bahati, asserting that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated as humans. Breaching such a law while relying on such logical fallacies is a sign of how the government failed on human rights. [1] DREDF, ‘The Constitution Of Uganda; Chapter 4, human rights and freedoms’, dredf.org, http://www.dredf.org/international/UgaConst.html [2] Mark Duell & Leon Watson, 'Gay people are unnatural and disgusting', says Ugandan president as he signs bill punishing homosexual sex with life in jail’, dailymail.co.uk, 24 February 2014, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566425/Ugandas-president-sign-anti-gay-bill-Monday.html