BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.

Insurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance. Driving absent insurance means that there is an incentive to drive off if you cause an accident to avoid having to pay for the damages you have caused and being criminally punished for driving without insurance. This leaves the other driver having to foot their own bill for the repairs to their vehicles[1].  Moreover, even if the uninsured driver stays at the scene, illegal immigrants are characteristically very poor as they must engage in exploitative work to make a wage because they must hide from the state and do not get the same protections from the state, so would still be unable to pay for the damages they have caused. Moreover, having uninsured drivers on the road increases insurance premiums for all insured drivers on the road, as they have to de-facto pay for the risk and damage these uninsured drivers cause[2]. Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses allows for more fair and accountable systems of insurance and driving conditions on the road. [1] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper [2] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. "Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot." New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper
This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.

Drivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America. Despite American feelings on illegal immigrants, they are there in their society, contribute to their communities and are a group of people that are routinely and unjustly exploited because of their lack of access to state protection. Despite popular opinion of this being a punishment for breaking their laws, these people operate like any other citizen in American society and are human beings who deserve to be treated as such and to be offered at least some level of protection for the fact that they are human and for what they contribute to America communities and society. Providing these people with a proper form of identification, especially a driver’s license, which is almost universally accepted as an adequate form of identification to access services from the state and to interact with the rest of society. Specifically, this allows immigrant communities to not feel as though they are confined to an isolated area as they now can travel further distances to gain better employment without fear of being caught and thrown into jail[1]. Moreover, this allows them access to all services offered by the state that require identification such as voter registration. Therefore, this helps enfranchise a group that is normally exploited in America society. [1] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...
This rewards law-breaking.

This policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified. There are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and immigration procedures. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses simply because they made it here is just rewarding them for being good at breaking our laws. We have a moral obligation to continue to deny illegal immigrants the perks of citizenship because they have undermined the very laws and processes that citizenship relies on in America. Moreover, if we simply treat them the same as legal immigrants in our country, there is no deterrent left to stop people from just ignoring our immigrant processes and trying to immigrate illegally to avoid the queue. Therefore, we shouldn’t give illegal immigrants drivers licenses because that simply rewards law-breaking and undermines the legal system and immigration policy we rely on.
This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.

This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result. It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy[1]. Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin[2]. Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. The issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities. Therefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority. [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818 [2] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...
This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.

Allowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America. Illegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens. Giving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous[1]. There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens. Alternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity. If the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals. [1] "Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens." News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html
This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.

This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an expectation that most people in the illegal immigrant community have because of their paranoia over the state pursuing them and wanting to deport them. This fear is only exacerbated by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that permeates American society at present and makes them feel that the state will try to seek them out however they can to get rid of them.
This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.

These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.
This rewards law-breaking.

There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers. On the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context. Being able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.
This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.

The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.
This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.

The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs. On this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose. The additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.
The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.

Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers[1]. A fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets[2]. Illegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction[3]. Therefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers. [1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818 [2] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818 [3] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...
Suicide is a waste of life

Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case.[1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own. [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996, http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/perrett.htm
Suicide is a selfish act that causes suffering to others

Suicide is an entirely selfish act that causes immense pain and suffering for those loved ones that are left behind. It is also cowardly; rather than facing your problems and being strong, you instead take the easy way out and kill yourself. It is important, therefore, to instil a strong sense of responsibility to one’s family and for one’s affairs and to do this by punishing those who try and fail to perpetrate this selfish and cowardly act.
Prohibiting suicide sends the message that it is not an acceptable behaviour

Individual action is shaped by what norms and standards are set by society. By prohibiting suicide, society sends out a message that it is not an acceptable action. Legislation is a useful social tool, in that it proscribes the limits of individual action. And by failing to prohibit suicide, society fails to add the ultimate sanction of its laws into the balance of any decision whether or not to commit suicide. Many of those who have tried and failed to commit suicide never attempt it again. This suggests that many who kill themselves do so because of their particular short-term circumstances, perhaps while ill, suffering financial problems or under emotional stress, rather than through a considered and rational decision. More than 30% of suicides are precipitated by intimate partner problems, more than 10% by jobs problems and 10% by financial problems.[1] Given this, even a small deterrent will help to save many lives that are currently wasted needlessly. [1] Canters for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Suicide: Data Sources’, 26 August 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/datasources.html#link
The right to life means a right to death

When we speak of the right to life it means more than merely the right to be alive, it encompasses the right to self-ownership, the notion that one’s life is one’s own and that you are not beholden to anyone else by the mere fact that you are alive.  It follows from this that there can be no duty on anyone to live beyond a point of their own choosing, and there should be no attempt to interfere with suicidal behaviour whether by individuals or by the law.[1] [1] Chobli, Michael, ‘Suicide’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward n. Zalta (ed.), Fall 2009, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#LibVieRigSui
We are all dying

Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die.  Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes.  We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice?
Suicide is a waste of life

The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted
Suicide is a selfish act that causes suffering to others

This is only an objection to particular cases of suicide; it cannot be made into a general case because some suicides really do only affect the individual – those in which there is no extended family or friendship group. And that an act is, on occasion, selfish is not sufficient grounds to prohibit it. Indeed, ostracising one’s friends or walking out on one’s family can upset people but we are hardly likely to deny people the liberty to make such individual, private life choices. Nobody has the right to force people to live in circumstances that cause them unhappiness. Suicide should be viewed in exactly the same way. Moreover it should be remembered that an attempt to prosecute survivors or in some way to punish relatives of those who succeed is clearly not going to help leaving grieving relatives in a worse position.[1] [1] Holt, ‘When Suicide was illegal’, 2011
Prohibiting suicide sends the message that it is not an acceptable behaviour

Society can perfectly well spread the message that suicide is not a valid life choice without criminalizing and punishing those that have tried and failed to perpetrate it. Moreover, we have grave doubts about the practical use of anti-suicide legislation. It is highly dubious that people who are driven to contemplate suicide will be dissuaded by the knowledge that they would be breaking the law. The spectre of punishment only awaits those who fail to commit suicide. These people have already decided that their lives are not worth living; branding them criminal and punishing them is hardly likely to make them reconsider their decision.
Suicide undermines the sanctity of the human body

Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity.
The people of Kosovo are distinct from their neighbours

Kosovo-Albanians are ethnically and culturally distinct from Serbs. They live in a geographically distinct location, Kosovo which is separated from Serbia by the Prokletije, Kopaonik and Zegovac mountains. They comprise 1.7 million people, living within a distinct area, who as the majority are ethnically Albanian and religiously Muslim are clearly different from the Serbs who until recently ruled over them. There was initially a peaceful resistance movement led by Ibrahim Rugova, established after the loss of autonomy and rights the region experienced in the 1990s.  However once this failed to make progress in 1997 an armed resistance movement called the Kosovo Liberation Army emerged.[1] Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian leader responded with in ethnic persecution resulting in NATO intervention which in itself should be enough reason to support independence. For all these reasons, Kosovo-Albanians deserve to be allowed to govern themselves just as much as any other people. [1] Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, ‘Background Note: Kosovo’, U.S. Department of State, 16 November 2011, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/100931.htm
Self-determination is a human right

Self-determination is a right recognised by the United Nations Charter and forms the basis of relations between all nations on earth. Thus, Kosovo-Albanians have international law on their side in their pursuit of an independent homeland. If the UN Charter is not explicitly on the side of the Kosovo-Albanians it is difficult to see which people it does support. The very credibility of international law and international society depends on support for causes like that of Kosovan independence where the people in a region have had their right to self-determination internally totally frustrated.[1] [1]Kumbaro, Dajena.‘The Kosovo Crisis in a International Law Perspective: Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO intervention’. NATO Office of Information and Press. 2001.  http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/kumbaro.pdf