BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fence is a practical way to stop immigration and large parts of it have been built.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing in high-crossing and high-risk sections along the border. This includes around the border town of Tecate, Calif., and a huge expanse stretching from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., which is virtually the entire length of Arizona's border with Mexico. Another section would stretch over most of the southern border of New Mexico. An additional section will wind through Texas, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and from Laredo to Brownsville. This would not only be a fence but will include technology to secure "operational control" of the border by using unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, radar, satellites and cameras.1 1Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill."
The fence is morally wrong and inhumane

Because it does not create an airtight border, it simply forces crossings at more dangerous locales like the hot, snake-infested deserts. Thousands of Mexicans have died since 2000 attempting the crossing, while less than 300 people died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall in almost three decades.1 The bodies of at least four hundred people were found in 2010.2 Simply put, barriers do not diminish the desire for a better life.3 That sort of catastrophic disregard for the fundamental humanity of these people demeans America as a nation. It is hard to reconcile this disregard with our considerable humanitarian support for starving people in Somalia and all over the world. We should work together to help hard-working individuals provide for their families. Most border-crossers are not drug runners, but people who just want legitimate jobs so they can feed their families. 1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexico." 2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier." 3McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons." improve this
The fence is ineffective at carrying out its stated goals.

Not all illegal immigrants who are in the United States arrive by means of crossing the border; some overstay legally-acquired work visas. Attempts to implement "virtual" components of the fence have failed on several grounds. Images were too blurry, the systems performed poorly in bad weather, and there were false detections because of the inability to distinguish between animals and people.1 The technology also suffered from software bugs, and ultimately squandered billions of dollars.2 Because not all of the approximately 2000 mile border is covered by actual fencing, and even the physical fencing that exists is not continuous and relied on virtual components to cover the gaps, immigrants can easily go around the fence or through the weak points.3 In the past, immigrants have also used ladders or deception techniques (like cars with hollowed out dashboards) to bypass the fence. Additionally, drug runners have developed extensive and sophisticated tunnels to duck the wall and clear any sort of security checkpoints, rendering this defense mechanism with a price tag in the billions of USD4 (and expensive upkeep costs to boot) virtually useless.5 Finally, many individuals who cross the border looking for employment do so repeatedly, even when they are deported or turned back at the border by agents.6 In jurisdictions where these individuals are held in detention on misdemeanour charges, they contribute to overcrowding in prison facilities and consume valuable prosecutorial resources.7 1Ryan, Jason. "Homeland Security Axes Bush-Era 'Virtual Fence' Project." 2NYT Editors. "Virtual Failure on the Border." 3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences." 4McFadyen, Jennifer. "Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons." 5Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence." 6Federation for American Immigration Reform. "US Mexico Border Fence and Patrol Operations." 7Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. "Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence." improve this
A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.

Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes.
It is important to maintain and enforce the principle of the rule of law, and a fence does that.

Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing.
The fence is a serious environmental threat and endangers wildlife.

While environmental concerns are certainly serious and warrant consideration, we need to balance the competing interests here. It is only a handful of species that would be threatened by this project, and any such endangered species can be moved into specially-designed preservation facilities that mimic the natural habitat. On the other hand, there is no other truly effective way to stop illegal immigrant crossings. In this sense, the local environment is a sacrifice of necessity. A related environmental concern is the pollution border-crossers leave in the desert and surrounding habitats, which would actually be reduced if fewer of them were crossing. improve this
A fence hurts our political relationship with Mexico.

The United States has consistently demonstrated that it is a true partner in the war on organized crime in Northern Mexico. For instance, it has used unmanned drones like the ones in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Mexican drug lords.1 The relationship is healthy and Mexican officials frequently cooperate; it is certainly possible that there are underlying domestic political motivations for those politicians to be making such strong statements, and we should not necessarily take them at face value as representing the best picture of Mexican-American relations. 1 Defense News. "US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexic
The fence only seems to solve the problem and detracts from dialogue about real solutions.

This argument is based on drastically different goals than the one that would support the fence being raised. While some individuals may want to take in illegal immigrants and provide them with generous welfare benefits and call that "comprehensive immigration reform", that is not what the majority of Americans want. They want illegal immigrants kept out of the country, and that in and of itself is a solution from their perspective, so to say that a fence distracts from the goal is just a straw-man. In the sense that it helps keep people out, it is working just as intended. Erecting the fence and taking other measures (such as investigating employers who hire illegal immigrants) are by no means mutually exclusive, and we can do both to ensure that American jobs are going to people who are in America legally.
A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.

Ironically, even Mexico recognizes this when it attempts to increase border enforcement along its own southern border with Guatemala1,2.  If those policies are lawfully set by the people and legislature, then regardless of how efficacious a particular tool is, it is justified.  It is clear that the fence is wildly popular – well over half of the United States supports it3 , and many individuals are so adamant about increasing border security that they are willing to make donations for these purposes4. The social contract of the United States means that the government is democratically elected and therefore accountable to its people.  If they want to focus on securing the borders instead of providing more extensive welfare programs or reforming education or anything else they could be spending money on, that is their prerogative.    1Thompson, Ginger.  “Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border.” 2Cutler, Michael. “Hypocrisy: Mexico Building Security Fence Against Guatemala.” 3Rasmussen Reports. “Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%.”  4Crawford, Amanda. “Arizona’s State-Owned Mexico Border Fence Attracts Donors From Across U.S.”
It is important to maintain and enforce the principle of the rule of law, and a fence does that.

Illegal immigrants are openly flaunting the law, and permitting them to enter the country in this way demeans the hard-working individuals who immigrated legally. If people become angrier about illegal immigrants because more of them are coming in without a fence, this may also lead to the negative outcome of poorer treatment of Latinos who live and work legally in the United States. If there were no or very few illegal immigrants, there would be much less tension in communities since everyone would know that all the inhabitants had come there legally.
The fence is a serious environmental threat and endangers wildlife.

By cutting off components of the habitat, the fence diminishes gene flow and reduces the ability for survival, or creates remnant populations that are too small to sustain the species.1 Counter-intuitively, even certain winged species which fly low to the ground would be at risk. Climate change is forcing more migrations, and this would also prevent animals from carrying those out.2 This has been so lightly regarded by U.S. officials that at one point Mexico actually threatened to file a claim with the International Court of Justice.3 1Goldstein, Rob. "US-Mexico border fence putting wildlife at risk of extinction." 2Marshall, Jessica. "U.S.-Mexico Border Fence May Snag Wildlife." 3Magee, Megan. "The U.S.-Mexico Border Wall: An Environmental And Human Rights Disaster." improve this
A fence hurts our political relationship with Mexico.

The United States needs to demonstrate that it is interested in being a true partner with Mexico in efforts to reduce drug trafficking and the pervasive cartel-driven violence of northern Mexico. Trying to simply keep all the Mexicans out is offensive; the governor of the Mexican state Coahuila has called the fence a "wall of hate",1 and in 2005 Mexican President Vincente Fox called the situation "disgraceful and shameful."2 Many individuals in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas have family and friends on the Mexican side and speak fluent Spanish, and don't support the wall. On the other hand, Arizona's demographics reflect population growth as the result of many Midwestern "snowbirds" with little experience of Latino culture moving there, and thus Arizona has much harsher prejudices against Mexicans.3 If we do not cooperate with Mexico, they will be less likely to share information valuable to our national security or cooperate with us on foreign policy initiatives. 1Hylton, Hillary. "Opponents of the Border Fence Look to Obama." 2Global Security. "US-Mexico Border Fence." 3The Economist. "Good neighbours make fences." improve this
A fence would help defend the economy of the United States.

This assumes the fence is efficacious and therefore the cause of the reduction.  It is not – there are numerous bypasses, ranging from simple ladders on pickup trucks to complex tunnels for the movement of people and drugs.1 While it may seem to be the case that the fence has caused the reduced numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross, in actuality this is because of the economic downturn in the United States.2,3 If there are no jobs, it stands to reason there is not going to be an influx of workers.  Even if it were efficacious, however, the idea that immigrants steal jobs is fundamentally flawed.  Immigrants fill gaps in the domestic labour market.4 They are non-competitive for most types of jobs, such as supervisor positions.5  And anyways, most economists say that immigration grows the economy by expanding demand for goods and services that immigrants consume, and consequently this actually creates more jobs.  While immigrants certainly may push down wages for some occupations, the net effect is to increase average wages for non-immigrant Americans. Finally, the economies of many border towns on the United States’ side of the fence will suffer because of decreased demand for their goods and services. 1McGreal, Chris.  “The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.” 2Associated Press. “U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.” 3Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. “Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.” 4Cowen, Tyler. “How Immigrants Create More Jobs.” 5Novak, Viveca.  “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?”
Sex education damages the education system

A disagreement over sex education will not alienate someone, whether child or parent, from the entire education system. Students can differentiate between contentious aspects of education like sex education and the general education over which parents, teachers, and state do not disagree. Both parents and teachers will be able to explain the reasons for the difference in teaching in cases where the student is taught different things at home and in school. Saying that just because one issue is contentious all of education is ruined is merely alarmist.
Sexual development is a process of gradual discovery and cannot be effectively taught in a classroom

While certainly there should always be room for self-exploration in sexuality, a set mandatory curriculum is essential to understanding the basics of sex and offering opportunity to consider the emotional and social aspects of it in the cultures of young people.[1] It is unfortunate that some students may feel unprepared to undergo sex education, but the value of the information outweighs any potential discomfort. Certainly there is nothing so scarring about the nature of sex that someone who is a bit immature cannot handle with some effort. We need also to have some confidence in the abilities and sensitivities of our teaching professionals to be able to respond with effective sensitivity to the different needs of their students in the classroom situation. This means that we need properly trained teachers to be delivering sex education and teachers themselves have asked for this to be the case. The research evidence does make it clear that young people are at varying stages of maturity when they are at the same chronological age. Young men may lag behind young women and act with considerable immaturity in sex education lessons.[2] The effective answer to this may be to offer single sex lessons in sex education rather than removing the opportunity for sex education from all young people. [1] Thomson, Unholy Alliances, 1993 [2] Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000
The state has had no historical role in sex education to no ill effect, so should it develop one now.

This argument is based on a particular view of the state and its role in society.it is a view of the state which is particularly innocent of and which fails to acknowledge the range of cultural messages relating to society and sexuality[1] which are broadcast hegemonically although not entirely openly by the state.[2] The state does have a role in sex education. It has taken an ever more holistic view of young citizens, and this is reflected in schools whose remit stretches not just to the academic education of students, but to the preparation of young people for the full spectrum of activities and responsibilities they will face in adult life. Sexual interaction is a fundamental part of that life. Schools have evolved far beyond the provision of skill in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and this should be reflected in such programs as sex education. The state does not in mandating sex education make any normative judgment regarding sexual practices, but rather provides the necessary information and the space to consider the emotional and social issues involved to make informed choices about sex. [1] Plummer, Sexual Cultures, Communities, Values and Intimacy, 1996 [2] Foucault, Studies in governmentality, 1979. Throughgood, Sex Education as Social Control, 1992
A safe framework for understanding sexuality and sexual identity are essential to human existence

Sex and sexual identity is fundamental part of human life. Sexual desire, for both procreation and recreation, forms one of the core human drives that shapes behaviour.[1] Young people want to explore their own, and one another’s, bodies from quite an early age, long before they would be likely to settle down and get married. Sex for almost everyone in Western countries is not something exclusive to marriage, and most people have multiple sexual partners in their lifetimes. In order to face this reality, young people must be armed with the knowledge of what sexual intercourse entails and the pleasures and the risks inherent in it.[2] Sexual identity itself can be very confusing, especially for young homosexual or transgender people who may not understand their sexuality. A safe, objective environment in which the objective physical facts and the emotional aspects of sexual involvement and activity is provided is  essential to facilitate young people to come to grips with sexual identity  as it is essential for full development as a person. [1] Weeks, Sexual Politics and Society, 1981. Mort, Dangerous Sexualities, 1987 [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003
Parents cannot be guaranteed to provide a suitable amount of sex education

Parents have a great deal of responsibility in raising children, but they are unsuited to teaching about sexuality as the resulting education will not be consistent, be biased and in some cases may not be carried out at all. Parents tend to view their children as less sexualized; they want them to be innocent. Thus it is often the case that parents seek to shield their children from the realities of sex, and themselves from the young person’s developing sexuality maintaining their innocence through enforced ignorance. This tends to be particularly harmful to young women, as culturally boys are often expected to be more sexually active than girls, and such activity is usually considered appropriate for boys, while not so for girls. A double standard undoubtedly continues to exist.[1]  It is in the interest of the state, however, to produce well-rounded individuals who can interact with society effectively on all levels, including the sexual level. When parents do not provide adequate sex education, it is the state that is forced to pick up the tab to pay for STD treatment and teen mothers. People dropping out of school due to pregnancy, and individuals who are unable to work due to debilitating venereal disease impose a steep cost on society. It is thus the state’s duty to provide what parents often cannot for the sake of society as a whole.[2] Leaving sex education in the hands of parents has the further negative impact of normalizing incorrect or bigoted views regarding sexuality. Homophobic families, for example, will not be able to provide the necessary information to homosexual children, who will suffer not only from lack of education, but also from a lack of sexual self-worth.[3] Mandatory sex education can right the wrongs of such misinformation and bias. [1] Lees, Sugar and Spice, 1993 [2] Ciardullo, Moving towards a new paradigm, 2007 [3] Galliano, Sex Education Will Help Gay Children, 2009
Even religious and conservative communities will benefit from mandatory sex education

sexual activity and lewd behavior, as religious groups fear, because everything in life is already sexualized. One need only watch a typical perfume ad on television to know that sexuality inculcates popular culture already. Sex education would not lift the scales from the eyes of children entirely; they already have some idea of what is going on. The danger is when they know something about sex, but not enough to be safe. That is why mandatory sex education is essential to people’s wellbeing. The research evidence from across the world is clear that sex education holds back the age of first intercourse and most certainly does not foster early promiscuity.[3] The abstinence programmes that have been developed in the united states in particular have been spectacularly unsuccessful in reducing rates of sexual exploration and STD and unwanted pregnancy rates.[4] Research has made it clear which kinds of sex education are most effective.[5] [1] Reiss and Mabud, Sex education and Religion, 1998 [2] Blake, Teenage Sex, 2003 [3] Boethius, Swedish sex education and its results, 1984. Swedish National Board of Education, Sex Education in Swedish Schools, 1986. [4] Oakley et al, Sexual health education interventions for young people, 1995 [5] Kirby et al, School Based Programmes to reduce sexual risk taking behaviour, 1992
Parents should have the final choice in sex education for their children

Parents are the ones who are responsible for their children and they know what is best for their own. Parents are the people who best know their children; they live with them, feed them, understand them, and know how and when is best to broach the topic of sex with their children. Parents are in a very real way the shapers of children’s psyche and development, so their input on a central moral and physical issue such as this must be respected. It is a myth that somehow parents lacks the capacity to deal with an issue like sex. Rather, they are the best suited to it. The fact is that children generally listen to their parents, or at least consider seriously what they are told by them. Furthermore, parents are more capable than teachers, in light of their intimate relationship with their children, to discuss the emotional aspects of sex and relationships, topics that would become jokes in the classroom and the subject of ribald humour.[1] It is better to leave sex education in the hands of parents who can apply the delicate touch. [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998. Measor et al. Young People’s Views on Sex Education, 2000. Woodcock et al., All these contraceptives, videos and that…, 1992. Kehily and Nayak, Lads and Laughter, 1997.
Sex education damages the education system

Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education.[1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998