BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Just as with other parties around the world, once the dominant argument of a political party proves to be a busted flush it takes about a decade to recover

Both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, the Conservatives in Canada, the Socialists in France and many others all over the world have gone through periods of regrouping following extended periods in office. Political movements simply run out of fresh ideas after prolonged periods of government and the Republican Party is going through such a period. The Bush Mantra of a presumption in favour of financial deregulation and in favour of tax cuts to create a trickle-down effect have both been proven to be wrong – or at least were taken to too great an extreme. The country needs to rebalance just as the Republicans need to find new ideas and new standard bearers. Future leaders of the party like Marco Rubio and Tim Pawlenty may have interesting ideas by 2016 but the current leadership is a busted flush[i]. [i] 2016 Election.com
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers who simply don’t have a coherent message or ideology

The Tea Party movement has hijacked the Republican Party, bullying elected representatives to pursue a very narrow political agenda that has more to do with their moral outlook than the traditional role of politics. The Tea Party has little in the way of a political programme and nothing in the way of understanding the nuances of local politics or the realities of electoral politics. While the party remains in thrall to this vociferous but unrepresentative minority, it has little to offer the wider party and les to offer the wider American public. Although they are strident in terms of what they are against, they have little to offer by way of a substantive contribution to the national debate.
Having won the economic argument during the Reagan years – both with Russia and the Democratic Party – the Republicans now address social concerns and do so with a consistent message.

Having won the argument over the primacy of the Free Market under Reagan, modern Republicans have turned their attention to other concerns, primarily surrounding the size and role of the federal governments and the social attitudes that are acceptable for the nation to adopt as a whole. Although the liberal media may grow weary of the message that the majority of Americans hold certain values and expect those to be respected by the government, it remains the case. The Republican Party has, and continues to be, the strongest and most consistent voice on these matters; defending traditional families and their values.
All parties represent a range of opinions and coalesce around and promote their core values and the Republican debate is simply an example of that

Although there are nuances of belief and differences of approach within the Republican Party, as there are in all political parties, they continue to promote the core values that define the party and the wider movement. As the primary process demonstrated the is diversity of belief within the party and a healthy sense of debate and that is to be welcomed. However, the values that the party represents – God, family and patriotism – remain their values of the party’s leadership and the American people
The Republican Party is, yet again, suffering from the inability of the mainstream and liberal media to accurately cover political debate they constantly wish to portray healthy discourse as split and schism

It would be deeply unhealthy if there were not a lively discourse in any political movement but the media fails to reflect that fact. Disillusionment with Obama has been growing almost since day one of his presidency and looks set to continue through the rest of 2012, the Republicans, by contrast have a clear message with growing support at all levels. The very fact that they have been so successful in thwarting the more dangerous of Obama’s policies demonstrate that they have both the arguments and the acumen to defeat him in Congress, just as they do for the presidency.
The leadership of the Republican Party simply has nothing to do with its membership as a result no candidate has, or can, capture the imagination.

Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them. The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.
Just as with other parties around the world, once the dominant argument of a political party proves to be a busted flush it takes about a decade to recover

The current leadership of the party have strong conservative credentials and stand in stark contrast to the increasingly unpopular Obama who has been deserted by his own party and certainly the enthusiastic youthful idealists who elected him. It’;s perhaps a sign of the lack of both political and intellectual leadership within the Democratic Party that the Iowa Caucus saw many of those same young enthusiasts who supported Obama switch dramatically to Ron Paul in pursuit of a consistent ideology. The consistency of the Republican Party in making the argument for lower taxes and smaller government stands in stark contrast to the ever shifting sands of the Democrats.
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers who simply don’t have a coherent message or ideology

The Tea Party represents not only a community that has been largely ignored in recent elections but one that is also the mainstay of both the Republican Party and of the American Heartland. Namely, white, working class Americans, whose views and interests have been swept away by a party and national establishment that thought their votes could be taken for granted. While both parties sort out the votes and support of big companies, organised labour, and minority voting blocs the average American was taken for granted. The current approach of the Republican leadership has corrected that directly as a result of the Tea Partiers, returning the party to its traditional values and core voters.
Having won the economic argument during the Reagan years – both with Russia and the Democratic Party – the Republicans now address social concerns and do so with a consistent message.

It is simply untrue to present the Republicans as the party of small government. The two presidents under whom the size of government grew the fastest - both in terms of personnel and expenditure – were Reagan and Bush Jr. When Republicans says they are interested in small government they simply mean that they want it to be small enough to get under the bedroom door; making it more interventionist not less. They have been reduced to a fringe organisation obsessed with a handful of issues, endlessly mouthed as soundbites to prove their orthodoxy to the most extreme wing of their party which does nothing to endear them to a largely uninterested electorate. In an age of economic austerity, the party simply has nothing meaningful to say on this, the most crucial, matter of the day.
All parties represent a range of opinions and coalesce around and promote their core values and the Republican debate is simply an example of that

The Republicans have been highjacked by the extreme right of their party, making them virtually unelectable. In any other circumstance Obama should be looking like a sitting duck, with the disarray in the Republican party, it seems unlikely that they will be able to coalesce in any meaningful way around any candidate. The constant acts of regicide against the only credible candidate they have, Mitt Romney, suggests that he simply won’t have the support he needs come the general election. The very fact that he is unpopular with the party because he doesn’t confirm to an extreme of ideological purity is the very thing that makes him electable. Until Republicans recognise that electoral reality, they are doomed.
Internet anonymity allows internet users to engage in illegal activities

The internet is being used for illegal activities. Examples of these are trading and trafficking in child pornography, drug trading and planning and coordinating terrorist activities.[1] Anonymity makes it easier for these criminals as they can engage in their activities with less fear of being caught.[2] By regulating internet anonymity, we can combat illegal activities better, because a key resource for criminals has been diminished. This is exactly why Eugene Kaspersky, founder of antivirus firm Kasperksy Labs, called for an ‘internet passport’ for every internet user, allowing everyone to be identified as persons.[3] [1] UNODC, Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes, 2012. PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf [2] Interpol, ‘Cybercrime’. URL: http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Cybercrime/Cybercrime UNICRI, ‘Terrorism and the internet’. URL: http://www.unicri.it/special_topics/cyber_threats/cyber_crime/explanations/terrorism/ 2013 [3] Zdnet,’Microsoft OneCare was good enough’, October 16, 2009. URL: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-onecare-was-good-enough-2062058697/
Internet anonymity leads to spam

Internet anonymity is a boon for spammers: even though spamming (sending unsolicited mass-emails) is illegal in many countries, the ability to send emails anonymously, either through altering the ‘sent-from’ address in the email or by opening and immediately closing an email address, enables spammers to keep on spamming.[1] Even if spam-fighters do find an email address and domain name from which spam is sent, then privacy protections still make it almost impossible to find out who exactly owns the domain name.[2] By restricting email traffic so that it can only be sent through official email-servers, we can ensure traceability of email senders and thereby increase the likelihood of catching spammers – which is what South-Korea, the world’s second largest generator of spam emails, recently proposed under the ‘Block 25’ proposal.[3] [1] Spam Reader, ‘Why is it so difficult to catch a spammer?’, March 6, 2013. URL: http://www.spam-reader.com/articles/why-difficult-catch-spammer.shtml [2] Spam Resource, ‘Is Online Anonymity a Bad Thing?’, March 2, 2010. URL: http://www.spamresource.com/2010/03/is-online-anonymity-bad-thing.html [3] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15720599
Internet anonymity increases cyberbullying and trolling

In normal social life, people restrain themselves in what they say to others. When anonymously online, people behave differently: whatever they say and do can be said and done without consequence, because it isn’t traceable to them as persons, or, as comic artist John Gabriel is often paraphrased 'Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiot’.[1] The consequences of this behaviour are ugly or downright harmful. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMPORGs) like World of Warcraft face a constant atmosphere of verbal abuse created by their players.  And there’s worse than simple trolling like this: anonymity increases the effects bullying. For example, where schoolchildren originally were bullied in schools by bullies whose faces they knew, with online anonymity the bullying goes on anonymously online and invades every aspect of the victims’ lives – aggravating their suffering so much that in some cases they actually commit suicide, as for example did Canadian teenager Amanda Todd.[2] That’s why organizations maintaining online communities, whether they be social networking sites like Facebook, MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and newspaper sites like The Guardian should (legally) be required to (publicly) verify the person behind an account or take it offline if it remains anonymous, as New York senators recently proposed.[3] [1] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/rhodri-marsden-online-anonymity-lets-us-behave-badly-2025758.html [2] Huffington Post, ‘Amanda Todd: Bullied Canadian Teen Commits Suicide After Prolonged Battle Online And In School’, October 11, 2012. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/amanda-todd-suicide-bullying_n_1959909.html [3] Wired, ‘New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech’, May 22, 2012. URL: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/anonymous-online-speech-ban/
Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech

Internet anonymity isn’t necessary to exercise citizen’s right to free speech Even when we accept the theoretical principle of free speech, the past years have shown that internet anonymity is not necessary for citizens to exercise their right to free speech. First, look at ‘access to the internet’ as a prime factor, regardless of whether it’s anonymous or not: In the case of the Arab spring, the causes of the unrest were increased oppression and a declining economic climate.[1]  Internet access wasn’t that much of an enabling factor in the Arab Spring: the countries that saw the highest mobilization of citizens (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen) actually rank lowest in internet penetration of all Arab countries.[2] Secondly, let’s look at anonymity on the internet, provided that access is given: Again, the Arab Spring shows that anonymity isn’t a decisive factor at all. In Egypt and Tunisia, Facebook was a main vehicle to organize protests,[3] yet Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity  – up to the extent that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks called Facebook  ‘the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented’.[4] All this shows that internet anonymity isn’t as crucial a factor in fostering political dissidence as its proponents like to believe. [1] Foreign Common Wealth Office, ‘The Causes of the Arab Spring’. URL: http://fcohrdreport.readandcomment.com/the-arab-spring/the-causes-of-the-arab-spring/ [2] Yale Global, ‘Three Myths About the Arab Uprisings’, July 24, 2012. URL: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/three-myths-about-arab-uprisings [3] The National, ‘Facebook and Twitter key to Arab Spring uprisings: report’, June 6, 2011 URL: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/facebook-and-twitter-key-to-arab-spring-uprisings-report#ixzz2NWVMS6TQ [4] Cnet, ‘Assange: Facebook is an appaling spy machine’, May 3, 2011. URL: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20059247-17.html#ixzz1LNaW3qw2
Internet anonymity allows people to speak the truth without fearing harm to their careers

People have enough means to protect their careers Whistleblowers shouldn’t be protected by internet anonymity, but by legal measures, making it illegal to fire people for whistleblowing, and by building a corporate culture that actually ‘prevents whistleblowing by encouraging it’.[1] In the case of job applications, social networking sites like Facebook might not be anonymous, but lack of anonymity isn’t equal to full publicity. This is why, after criticism, Facebook has increased the visibility and usability of its privacy controls, which means that users themselves have more control over who is allowed to view their pictures and who is allowed to read their newsfeed.[2] If an employer still discovers someone’s fraternity party pictures with just a simple google search, then really the ‘victims’ themselves should take part of the blame by deciding to publish these pictures for all to themselves. Moreover, when employers take a peek at someone’s Facebook-profile, they might be looking for something different contrary to expectations: a lot of party pictures may be associated with the personality trait of extroversion, which many employers actually consider a good not a bad thing.[3] [1] Lilanthi Ravishankar, ‘Encouraging Internal Whistleblowing in Organizations’, 2003. Published online for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, URL: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/whistleblowing.html [2] The Guardian, ‘Facebook to improve privacy controls over public visibility’, December 12, 2012. URL:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/dec/12/facebook-improve-privacy-controls-pictures-public [3] Forbes, ‘What employers are thinking when they look at your profile page’, June 3, 2012. URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/03/06/what-employers-are-thinking-when-they-look-at-your-facebook-page/
Internet anonymity allows people to experiment and construct with new social identities

Internet anonymity can actually make online non-heteronormative communities less safe Internet anonymity allows people to ‘catfish’: to create a completely different online identity with the specific purpose of engaging in emotional/romantic relationships. In the case of non-heteronormative identities, a malicious ‘catfisher’ could construct an identity to lure someone into a trap.[1] But even without malicious intent, catfishing can have negative effects on non-heteronormative communities. Take the example of the ‘Gay Girl from Damascus’, a blog written by a male student from the University of Edinburgh pretending to be a lesbian girl called Amina Arraf in Syria: by faking he inadvertently reaffirmed a heteronormative pattern that marginalized identities can’t speak for themselves.[2] Moreover, some marginalized identities might see the chance to pretend to be heteronormative: the MTV show ‘Catfish’ sometimes shows gay men or women pretending to be of the other sex, to be able to maintain a fake, heteronormative relationship. Obviously, they do this because for them this feels like the only way to reach out and connect – but it nonetheless is a fake identity, and the backlash after they’re found out doesn’t help the public perception of non-heteronormative communities at all.[3] [1] Real Clear Politics, ‘The Problem with Online Anonymity’, March 13, 2012. URL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/13/the_real_problem_with_online_anonymity_113457.html [2] NPR. ‘White privilege and ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’, June 15, 2011. URL: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137202339/white-privilege-and-the-gay-girl-in-damascus [3] Daily Mail, ‘'Catfishing:' The phenomenon of Internet scammers who fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into romantic relationships’, January 17, 2013. URL:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264053/Catfishing-The-phenomenon-Internet-scammers-fabricate-online-identities-entire-social-circles-trick-people-romantic-relationships.html#ixzz2OgXjJ8Cf
Internet anonymity allows internet users to engage in illegal activities

Banning internet anonymity doesn’t decrease illegal activities Full traceability across the entire internet is difficult to implement: it would require a centralized worldwide agency certifying who has access to the internet – we don’t even have this for physical passports. But even if activities would be traceable to an IP-address, it doesn’t stop online illegal activities: criminals can remain anonymous by setting up anonymity servers, which allows them to rout their information through anonymous servers, even when their IP-addresses are known.[1] Even worse, malicious hackers can even recruit other people’s computers into engaging in illegal activities, for example in recruiting innocent people’s computers for collecting and distributing child pornography.[2] [1] Bruce Schneier, ‘Schneier on security. Anonymity and the internet’, blogpost February 3, 2010. URL: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html [2] Huffington Post, ‘Internet Virus Frames Users for Child Porn’, September 11, 2009. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/internet-virus-frames-use_n_350426.html
Internet anonymity leads to spam

Regulating the internet doesn’t stop spamming Restricting internet traffic by blocking ports doesn’t reduce spam at all: spam networks will be able to find another means of sending mass-emails within hours, if not seconds.[1] But there’s another consequence of regulating internet traffic this way: it makes internet traffic and email slower and more cumbersome, hampering small businesses and companies working mostly through online channels. It thus hinders the smooth functioning of the economy and hampers innovation.[2] [1] Zdnet, ‘South Korea to block port 25 as anti-spam countermeasure’, November 15, 2011. URL: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/south-korea-to-block-port-25-as-anti-spam-countermeasure/9789 [2] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15720599
Internet anonymity increases cyberbullying and trolling

Banning internet anonymity wouldn’t decrease cyberbullying and trolling Cyberbullying is bad, but internet anonymity isn’t the cause of rising suicides - cyberbullying is a circumstantial factor that triggers deeper, underlying problems in its victims.[1] Actually, banning internet anonymity can increase cyberbullying: when World of Warcraft announced their intentions to ban anonymity, female gamers voiced concerns of being forced to reveal their gender to other players, thus generating unwanted attention.[2] As to the problem of trolling causing discussions under newspaper-articles and forums to go ‘bad’: this isn’t necessarily the case. A mediating factor could be the exact system in place for placing comments: comment systems like Disqus allow people to comment anonymously but still be judged for the quality of their contribution to the discussion.[3] If organizations care about the quality of their online discussions, they will implement systems like this by themselves and wouldn’t need any government regulation. [1] ScienceNew, ‘Cyberbullying Does Not 'Cause' Teen Suicide’, October 20, 2012. URL: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/cyberbullying_does_not_cause_teen_suicide-95444 [2] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/rhodri-marsden-online-anonymity-lets-us-behave-badly-2025758.html [3] Silicon Valley Watcher, ‘Disqus: The Importance Of Trolls And Anonymity In Comments’, February 22, 2013. URL: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/02/disqus_the_impo.php
Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech

Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously.[1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences. The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions.[2] Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions.[3] [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/04/china-renewed-restrictions-send-online-chill [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL: http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816