BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Citizenship is great opportunity; grant it to those already here.

Consider being a part of another country which would treat you... "unwell". Where would you go? Certainly somewhere near your border, so what would the choice be? You will definitely choose the U.S. since it is a free country and for immigrants this is a great opportunity to get out of their past lives and make a new one, despite the fact that this is attained through desperate matters what you people call "Illegal Immigration". So why don't we give these people a shot at what they want, give them the rights of any American citizen? If America really is the land of the free, why can't we share some of that freedom?
Illegals and path to citizenship is a burden on taxpayers

Phyllis Schlafly, JD, conservative political activist, public speaker, and author, in a Nov. 9, 2004 Human Events article titled "Get Borders and Illegal Immigration Under Control": "Since millions of Americans are without health insurance, repeal the federal laws that require local American taxpayers to pay for emergency medical care and schooling for illegal aliens, and enforce the law that forbids states to grant the subsidy of in-state college tuition to illegal aliens."[16]
Path to citizenship exists: leave and apply legally

Dave Gibson. "Despite the lies…A 'path to citizenship' already exists." March 14th, 2010: "Those politicians and advocacy groups who continue to push for a so-called 'path to citizenship' for illegal aliens, ignore the fact that there is already such a 'path' and it has been successfully taken by millions. Of course, it is not quick, and it does not reward criminals. [it's the legal way]." Dave suggests that illegal immigrants leave and apply like everybody else, through the ordinary path to citizenship.
Illegals should be deported, not given amnesty

Jim Gilchrist, MBA, CPA, Founder and President of The Minuteman Project, in a May 31, 2007 Global Politician interview titled "Jim Gilchrist of Minuteman Project on Immigration, Terror, Elections": "I’m pro-deportation or if you want to use a nicer word, pro-repatriation. You cannot have a defeatist attitude towards the problem and have a solution. The repatriation of illegals must begin with a recognition of the problem and a plan. We may be called names, but the names our grandchildren will call us will be worse when they have to live in a destroyed country. There must be a multi-faceted approach, including arresting illegals and also cutting off social welfare programs to them."[12]
Path to citiz. puts illegals through citiz. process w/o deportation

George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Aug. 3, 2006: "The best plan is to say to somebody who has been here illegally, if you've been paying your taxes, and you've got a good criminal record, that you can pay a fine for being here illegally, and you can learn English, like the rest of us have done, and you can get in a citizenship line to apply for citizenship. You don't get to get in the front, you get to get in the back of the line. But this idea of deporting people is just not -- it doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't make any sense to a lot of people who understand this issue. So here's a reasonable way to treat people with respect and accomplish what we want to accomplish, which is to be a country of law and a country of decency and respect."[1]
Illegals take jobs from and lower wages for US citizens

Phyllis Schlafly, JD, conservative political activist, public speaker, and author, in a Nov. 9, 2004 Human Events article titled "Get Borders and Illegal Immigration Under Control": "No Amnesty. Congress should stiffen its backbone against the Bush Administration plan to grant amnesty to illegal aliens... Millions of foreigners are 'willing' to work for a few dollars a day and Americans are not willing to work for Third World wages. Terminate H-1B visas, since the U.S. has thousands of unemployed American engineers and computer specialists."[17]
Illegal immigrants do more harm than good; deport them.

Illegal immigrants undoubtably bring many benefits to the US. However, they bring much more harm than good. They increase the poverty rate in the areas they live in. They most likely are a bad influence on the Americans they live near with. They come to the US illegally and beg for legal citizenship so they can get rights they don't deserve. They came to here illegally and want citizenship so that they can have rights and abuse the US system. They decrease the morale of the parts they live in because of discrimination and also because of the suspicion, the fear they bring in because of their image of being criminals and drug dealers. Why should we grant them citizenship when they're here first illegaly?
Illegal immigrants denied basic human right w/o citizenship

The American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), in a Feb. 16, 2000 www.aflcio.org website section titled "The AFL-CIO Calls for Amnesty": "Millions of hard-working people who make enormous contributions to their communities and workplace are denied basic human rights because of their undocumented status... The AFL-CIO supports a new amnesty program that would allow these members of local communities to adjust their status to permanent residents and become eligible for naturalization."[2]
US has many national interests in path to citizenship

John McCain, US Senator (R - AZ), in a May 13, 2005 press release titled "Members of Congress Introduce Comprehensive Border Security & Immigration Reform Bill [S 2611]": "We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status."[18]
Statements against path to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Todd Schnitt, who often discusses immigration policy on the Schnitt Show, said in a phone interview with KOMO News: "Everybody who broke into this country illegally knows they broke into this country illegally, and they've been siphoning off our system. [...] I'm all for immigration. We're a country of immigrants that came to this country legally. [...] [But,] I don't believe in amnesty. We need to send them back to their home countries, and then they can reapply, get in line, and enter this country legally."[7]
Producers sneak trans fats into foods without consumer knowledge.

"Hidden danger - trans fats in foods." Choice. June 26th, 2009: "They rarely rate a mention on the label, but the trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for your health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. We’ve retested and can reveal that, while the fast-food chains have reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods we tested previously have eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contain even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without you even knowing about it."
Alternatives to trans fats aren't much healthier.

Kim Clarke Maisch, State Director National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). "Trans-Fat Ban Unhealthy for Small Business.": "the main alternative to trans-fat isn’t much healthier. In most cases, food makers will move to saturated fat, which carries all of the same health risks. The ban is therefore unlikely to have a perceptible effect on public health. So what’s the point, beyond the fleeting public relations boost that it gives to politicians who favor symbolism over substance?"
Trans fat ingredient has replacements unlike tobacco/alcohol.

Opponents of banning trans fats frequently compare the idea with that of banning alcohol or tobacco. You can't ban trans fats if you're not willing to also ban tobacco and alcohol, they say. But, this misses a key difference. While banning cigarettes and alcohol mean banning an entire product category, banning the ingredient of trans fats means no such thing. Rather, it simply means that readily available replacement ingredients must be used in the preparation of the same foods. And, since these fatty replacements are widespread and cheaply available, food makers and consumers should have little difficulty making the adjustment to making and consuming the same, albeit slightly modified, foods.
Trans fats are uniquely bad for human health

"Ban Trans Fats." Washington Post Editorial. November 6th, 2006: "The evidence that doctors and public health experts presented makes you think twice about picking up a Whopper: Trans fats, which are chemically engineered, decrease levels of desirable cholesterol while increasing harmful cholesterol; they increase dangerous inflammation that can contribute to the onset of diabetes; and they harden artery walls, which increases blood pressure. Trans fats are much worse than even naturally occurring -- and still very unhealthy -- saturated fats such as those found in butter. Dariush Mozaffarian, a Harvard cardiologist and epidemiologist, calculated that up to 22 percent of heart attacks in the United States are the result of trans fat consumption."
Banning trans fats is like banning alcohol and tobacco

Milton Friedman wrote in the 1980s: "If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. . . . Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives."[5]
Government should inform citizens, not ban trans fats

"Banned foods and misinformed consumers." Los Angeles Times. June 20th, 2008: "rather than ban HFCS or trans fats or any of these unhealthy foods, it would be far more effective to embark on an aggressive campaign to education consumers -- much as we've done with tobacco. In the case of trans fats, consumers need to understand what these substances are, why the industry uses them and what the consequences are. If information on trans fats and other "bad" foods were provided within a broader program of nutrition awareness, consumers might gradually eliminate the use of trans fats voluntarily, in the same way that many people have rejected tobacco. I also suspect that, as the public became more fluent in the language of diet and nutrition, the food industry would be less and less inclined to use such ingredients."
Banning trans fats means saving thousands of lives

"Ban trans fats and thousands of lives will be saved, UK told." Independent. April 16th, 2010: "Even a 1 per cent fall in use of the fats, as a proportion of total daily calories, would prevent an estimated 11,000 heart attacks and save 7,000 lives a year in England alone. Consumption of trans fats in developed nations ranges from 2-4 per cent of total calorie intake, they say. [...] In New York, voluntary efforts to reduce their use failed, but when they were banned in 2007 the proportion of New York restaurants using trans fats fell from 50 per cent to less than 2 per cent. (Some trans fats occur naturally so they cannot be totally eliminated.) Fears that trans fats would be replaced with saturated animal fat, which is also bad for health, have proved unfounded. Writing in the British Medical Journal, Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor of medicine, and Meir Stampfer, professor of epidemiology at Harvard, say removing industrial trans fats is 'one of the most straightforward public health strategies for rapid improvements in health.' A ban would save lives, be easy to implement yet have no impact on the price, sales, taste or availability of the affected foods, they say."
Enough info for consumers to make choice on trans fats.

John Stossel. "What will they ban next?" Real Clear Politics. December 20th, 2006: "In a free society the issue is: Who decides what I eat, the government or me? It's not as though information about trans fats is hard to come by. Scaremongers like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) are all too happy to tell you about the dangers, and they have no trouble getting their declarations of doom on television and into newspapers."
Trans fats are tasty and offer enjoyment to consumers.

Catherine Winters. "How to Spot Sneaky Fat: The Truth About Hidden Trans Fats." Ladies Home Journal: "They're what keep foods from turning rancid on grocery store shelves and give croissants their flakiness. They keep muffins moist, make fries and chips finger-licking good, and satisfy my sweet tooth." The enjoyment of such tasty foods has a qualitative value to one's emotions, happiness, and subsequently to one's health.
Trans fats can be replaced w/o changing taste/price.

"Ban Trans Fats." Washington Post Editorial. November 6th, 2006: "We would sympathize with the opponents of the trans fat ban if it weren't so easy and inexpensive to use other, less harmful products without significantly altering the taste of the food. Kraft recently eliminated trans fats from its Oreo cookies. Could you tell? Similarly, Wendy's tested its new frying oil in 370 franchises, and customers didn't notice the difference. Denmark imposed a national ban on trans fats with which even McDonald's has complied. Since trans fats aren't irreplaceable, objections for the sake of consumer freedom are also unconvincing. As with lead added to paint, trans fats are unnecessary additives to consumer products that can cause significant harm -- and many Americans don't even know they are in the restaurant food they are eating."
Restaurants have voluntarily stopped using trans fats

"Editorial: Trans fats are bad, but state ban worse." Chicago Sun Times Editorial. May 15th, 2011: "Many of the nation’s fast-food chains and food manufacturers already have eliminated trans fats from their products or have pledged to phase them out. Case in point: Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest grocer, recently announced a major initiative to voluntarily reduce the sugar and sodium content of its food and remove all trans fats, all in a nod to first lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign. And the Illinois Restaurant Association hasn’t come out against the proposed trans fat ban in part, its representatives say, because its members already have stopped using it."
Trans fat bans part of larger trend of infringements.

"In defense of trans fats." Fox News Editorial: "this country has now become a land where everything — right down to the foods you put in your body, can be regulated by political mob. Forget 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' In New York, and increasingly in the nation as a whole — providing one can get enough votes — anything goes. One need not be a Constitutional scholar to understand how this disgusting trend will significantly affect our economy, our liberty and the very essence of the American way of life."
Govt experts needed to protect citizens from trans fats.

"The Trans Fats Ban--Posner's Response to Comments." The Becker Posner Blog. December 24th, 2006: "one can never expect government to get things just right, given the play of politics. There are always going to be silly regulations, but that is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all. The commenters who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what if any regulations they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commenters think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgments about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts conducts the research and when it is reasonably obvious how we would react if we were informed of its results, implement the proper response. Surely our capacity to absorb information is quite limited and we must rely on the research of others for most of what we know and the knowledge of others for our protection."
Trans fat ban will hurt small restaurants most.

Carlie Irwin. "Trans fat ban: Good for you, bad for restaurants?" Girls Guide to the Galaxy. April 18th, 2011: "Since most of the big chains have already started the process of eliminating trans fat from their food, the ban would be no big deal to them. But small, independent restaurants are another story. The potential ban has small restaurant owners sweating and nervously eyeing their deep fryers. As the St. Louis Business Journal points out, many small restaurant owners don’t have the ability to effectively and efficiently reformulate their menu items. So banning trans fat could mean that your favorite independently-owned fried chicken joint down the street will be shuttering its doors."
Resources for regulating trans fats take from other things.

Art Carden. "Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of Fatty Foods." Forbes. March 4th, 2010: "There is also no such thing as a free 'trans-fat-free' lunch. Restricting trans fat consumption requires resources. Police officers could instead use these resources to enforce laws against crimes like theft, property damage, rape and murder, and educators could use these resources in the classroom. Are educators using their time and resources wisely preventing illegal bake sales and making sure school fundraisers and functions sell only stuff that's on the 'approved' list?"
Trans fats "unsafe" under regulatory standards.

"Ban Trans Fats." Washington Post Editorial. November 6th, 2006: "Currently, the FDA considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe,' a designation that allows food producers to use trans fats liberally. According to the FDA, however, 'safe' means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use' -- a criterion that trans fats no longer satisfy. Federal regulators should promptly move to revoke the 'generally regarded as safe' status for most -- if not all -- uses of trans fats, which would effectively eliminate trans fats from American food. Leaving local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, on the other hand, is an unnecessarily arduous way to stop their use."
Govt should protect consumers when consumers aren't fully informed.

It is all good and great to call for an "education campaign" to inform consumers of what they are eating. But, this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the "instructional" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures.
Other foods harmful, singling out trans fats is arbitrary.

Kim Clarke Maisch, State Director National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). "Trans-Fat Ban Unhealthy for Small Business.": "Sugar is unhealthy. Salt is unhealthy. Runny eggs, rare meat, processed flour, nearly anything consumed too frequently or excessively is potentially dangerous. America’s obesity problem isn’t the result of regulatory failure and it won’t be solved in Springfield. Better choices, better parenting, exercise and personal restraint are the keys. None of it can be mandated by government."
Trans fat ban needn't be whole solution to be good.

Some claim trans fats aren't the whole problem with people's health and that they contribute only a little bit to the overall health issues faced by individuals. They claim that making good choices overall is the most important factor. But none of this negates the fact that banning trans fats can make a positive contribution in reducing obesity and heart disease. That a ban can have any such significant effect makes banning trans fats a worthwhile endeavor. Solving all or even most of our health problems is too high a bar to judge a ban.
Trans fat ban requires exceptions, inconsistencies.

Kim Clarke Maisch, State Director National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). "Trans-Fat Ban Unhealthy for Small Business.": "in a concession to the obvious, lawmakers exempted bakeries from the ban because they know that it will drive up their costs and hurt their specialty items. But bakeries represent only one category of small business that would be harmed by the legislation. Restaurants and other specialty vendors who use trans-fat products on site would also be affected. Unfortunately, the bill provides them with no such protection."
The Bible defines marriage as between only a man and woman.

Candidate Barack Obama said Nelsonville, Ohio during the 2008 US presidential elections, in March of 2008: "I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."[10]
Gay marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages

"Civil Unions Are Not Enough. Six Key Reasons Why." Lambda Legal: "In its decision that a civil union law in California (there called a domestic partnership law) did not provide equality under the constitution, that state’s highest court listed these top two reasons why civil unions are not enough: 'First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples."
Gay marriage violates religious freedoms

B.A. Robinson. "Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions & domestic partnerships". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. June 17, 2009: "For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."
Gay marriage is a negligible change to institution of marriage

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "the inclusion of gay people is, in fact, a comparatively small change. It will affect no existing heterosexual marriage. It will mean no necessary change in religious teaching. If you calculate that gay men and women amount to about three percent of the population, it's likely they will make up perhaps one or two percent of all future civil marriages. The actual impact will be tiny. Compare it to, say, the establishment in this century of legal divorce. That change potentially affected not one percent but 100 percent of marriages and today transforms one marriage out of two. If any legal change truly represented the 'end of marriage,' it was forged in Nevada, not Vermont."