BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Open primaries push third parties out of general elections

George Will. "Proposition California ensures electoral blandness." Washington Post. June 13th, 2010: "Voters who prefer their political menu seasoned with the spices provided by minor parties are pretty much out of luck. Under Proposition 14, such parties -- Green, Libertarian, etc. -- which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those by failing to run first or second in primaries."
Open primaries will increase cost barrier for candidates

"'Open' Primaries and the Illusion of Choice." Open Salon, Front Porch Republic. June 9th, 2010: "And, as a report from the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies predicts, it is going to 'significantly' increase the cost of running for office in California, since candidates will have to make appeals to a wider swath of voters. That means, of course, that it will be that much more difficult for non-moneyed candidates to have a shot at elected office."
Manipulative tactics in open primaries rarely materialize

Kirk Johnson. "In open primary, fear of party crashing." New York Times. June 15, 2010: "So-called tactical voting in open primaries, here and elsewhere, is a perennial possibility that mostly fizzles come Election Day, voting experts say. And some people in both parties are convinced that will happen again here. [...] Mr. Wimmer, for example, who initially floated the idea of Republicans voting for Ms. Wright on his Facebook page last month, later withdrew the post and denounced the idea. A spokesman for the Utah Tea Party movement, David Kirkham, also said the group was opposed to members voting in the Democratic primary. 'We don’t play in the gutter,' Mr. Kirkham, adding that believed deliberate cross-party interference would be against Tea Party principles."
Open primaries allow nominations inconsistent with party member views

"Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "Political parties are also communities of shared belief. I am not a member of the Labour party because I prefer the colour red to the colours yellow, blue or green, but because I have certain values and I judge the Labour party to be the best (if highly imperfect) vehicle for bringing these values to bear on the political system. In choosing candidates for an election, party members choose someone to stand up for these values, make the case for policies that reflect these values to the wider public, and act on them if elected. [...] Under an open primary system, however, party members would lose the ability to choose candidates who reflect the distinctive values of the party to which they belong. If an open primary system works, it means that candidates are chosen who reflect the values of the public at large. The political party thus loses the ability to stand candidates who offer ideas to the public who express its distinctive values and beliefs."
Open primaries reduce distinctive ideological choices

"Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "A healthy democracy is one that presents voters at elections with real choices. Political parties, as communities of distinctive shared belief, are the main institution we use to frame choice. Under an open primary system, however, meaningful choice would be under threat. If the open primary system works, then all party candidates will end up looking pretty much like the median voter. Elections will become contests between centrists, and, given the absence of real policy or philosophical difference, will be determined more by issues of personality. That is bad for democracy."
Odors added to natural gas to enable human detection

"Why Natural Gas Is Dangerous". Alliant Energy - "When natural gas first comes out of the ground, you can’t see it or smell it. That’s why gas companies add a chemical that smells like rotten eggs to the gas to make even the smallest leaks easy to notice...Luckily, natural gas leaks are rare. Fires and explosions are even more uncommon – the rotten egg smell helps people get help quickly before anything bad happens."
Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest

"'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health". AEHA. - "AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful."
Natural gas is a fossil fuel that worsens global warming

While natural gas may be "cleaner" than burning other fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline, it is still a "dirty" energy resource, releasing significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. For an equivalent amount of heat energy, burning natural gas produces 70% as much carbon dioxide as burning petroleum and 55% as much as burning coal.[1] Natural gas is, therefore, only marginally cleaner than other fossil fuels. Burning it still contributes significantly to global warming. It should not, therefore, be held out as a solution.
Natural gas vehicles are commercial viable now

"Natural Gas Vehicles - A 'Now Solution' to Reducing Global Warming". IANGV 02 June 2003 - "The world-wide organization says vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) now total more than two million and are operating in more than 50 countries. "The natural gas vehicle industry is mature and commercially viable in many countries. More than 50 vehicle manufacturers are now producing factory-built natural gas vehicles," says the organisation’s New Zealand-based Secretary-General, Dr Garth Harris."
Natural gas is difficult to transport and store.

The major difficulty in the use of natural gas is transportation and storage. This is due to its low density. It is generally less efficient and more expensive to transport and store sources of energy that have a low level of latent energy per cubic meter. There is less return on each dollar spent in transporting and storing natural gas. Many existing pipelines in North America are close to reaching their capacity, prompting some politicians representing colder areas to speak publicly of potential shortages.
LNG and CNG are expensive methods of transporting/storing natural gas.

Pipelines cannot be built effectively across oceans. For this reason, it is necessary to transport natural gas by ship. For the above reasons, it is uneconomical to keep gas in its natural state, so the only viable alternatives are to liquify (LNG) or compress (CNG) the gas. This allows more of it to be transported in each voyage. Yet, liquefying and compressing natural gas for transportation, and then de-liquifying or de-compressing it for use, is an inefficient approach. It requires extra technology, process, management, and time that is not required in other alternative sources of energy.
Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases

"Natural Gas -- A Fossil Fuel". Energy Information Administration. - "Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It has fewer emissions of sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen than coal or oil, and when it is burned, it leaves almost no ash particles. Being a clean fuel is one reason that the use of natural gas, especially for electricity generation, has grown so much and is expected to grow even more in the future."
Natural gas is less flammable and explosive than other fuels

Natural gas is a safer fuel than gasoline and diesel fuels. This is related to the fact that it has a limited range of flammability; it requires the correct mixture of air and fuel to burn—somewhere in the 5 to 15 percent range, and an ignition temperature of approximately 1100 degrees F. This compares favorably to gasoline and diesel fuels which both have lower concentrations of flammability and lower temperatures of ignition.[5]
Single or zero fare maximizes the efficiency, convenience and attractiveness of public transport systems for both users and operators in inner cities

"The option of a single and potentially free public transport fare zone in the Sydney CBD should be examined as a way of immediately simplifying fare structures, eliminating CBD interchange fare penalties, eliminating other CBD fare anomalies and maximising the efficiency, convenience and attractiveness of CBD public transport systems for both users and operators." Independent Public Inquiry - Sydney's Long Term Public Transport Plan, May 2010
People are free moral creatures, accountable to nobody but themselves.

Individuals are independent in their ability to make moral choices based on their own moral compass. Individuals, therefore, must be held accountable to themselves. Libertarianism acknowledges that individuals must be accountable in this way, while major government programs and welfare programs do not (making individuals accountable for other other individuals). This undermines the dignity of an individual as their own free, moral agents. In general, if an individual wants to make poor choices, it is important that they alone are held responsible for the consequences. This is the only way to teach individuals to take responsibility for themselves and change.
Libertarianism contradicts the need for government monopoly of force

It is commonly understood in Western democracies that a government and civilian leaders have a monopoly over the use of force. If there is no or little government, under Libertarian principles, then this basic principle is undermined. If this is the intention of Libertarians, then they risk anarchy, rule by military might, militia-power, civil war, and even the decentralized initiation of war with foreign countries.
Libertarians are rightly against trade blocs and for free trade.

Libertarians, because they believe that all economic transactions should be free from government intervention, believe in the economic theories of free trade. Free trade involves "free markets" globally, and is believed by most economists to be the most efficient economic system. It incentivizes countries to produce only what they are best at producing and buy from other countries that are best at what they are producing. This results in lower prices internationally and generally the production of greater value.
Libertarianism would give criminals an immunity from loss

Because Libertarians uphold the absolute rights of individuals against government, a problem occurs in regards to how criminals are dealt with. The problem is that it may become difficult or impossible to imprison or punish criminals (e.g. by fining them and depriving them of some property) if their rights are inviolable by government. This is a dangerous situation, and would likely reduce the fears in the minds of criminals associated with committing crimes.
Free market capitalism is a non-existent myth in modernity

Jonathan Stein - "Once we begin distinguishing the many forms capitalism can take, analytic utility is lost by retaining talismanic terms like "free market." There is no national economy in the world today that is not a mixed economy, which also means that there is no market that is free, or even "mostly" free. Rather, markets are structures that are culturally bounded, always regulated, and genetically dependent on government intervention for their reproduction. Never are they simply "permitted.""[8]
People have full rights to their property that governments can't deprive

. Governments violate the rights of citizen when they force, or threaten to force, individuals to transfer their legitimately held wealth to the state in order to provide for pensions, to help the needy, or to pay for public goods (e.g., parks or roads). Individuals have a natural right to life, liberty, and property. Depriving any one of these rights diminishes the others. Therefore, these rights must be considered inviolable. They are important to uphold for their own ends, not merely for other expediencies. Therefore, no matter what the cost, the individual right to property must be upheld as an absolute.
Libertarian economics runs contrary to modern economic theory.

Paul Krugman - "Because economics touches so much of life, everyone wants to have an opinion. Yet the kind of economics covered in the textbooks is a technical subject that many people find hard to follow. How reassuring, then, to be told that it is all irrelevant--that all you really need to know are a few simple ideas! Quite a few supply-siders have created for themselves a wonderful alternative intellectual history in which John Maynard Keynes was a fraud, Paul Samuelson and even Milton Friedman are fools, and the true line of deep economic thought runs from Adam Smith through obscure turn-of-the-century Austrians straight to them."[9]
Liberal democracies should ensure a degree of "equality of outcome"

A principal 20th century liberal theorists, John Rawls, originated the idea of a the "veil of ignorance". The idea is that, imagining we all had no idea how we would "come out of the womb" and whether we would be "advantaged or disadvantaged", what kind of social contract would we construct. We would want to construct one in which we minimized the risks to ourselves if we happened to get the "short-end of the stick". This is why a degree of "equality of outcome" is important. Libertarianism does not recognize these ideas.
Government benefits don't justify the means; non-consensual coercion.

While government might produce some benefits, these benefits are not justified by the means. It is not enough to argue that government can produce "good" social outcomes by the non-consensual coercion of individuals into transferring their wealth to the state for such social purposes (or other means). Such coercion is wrong, making it irrelevant if performing this wrong produces a good social outcome; the ends should not be used to justify the means.
Individuals are entirely free, except to violate the freedoms of others

A bedrock principle of Libertarianism is that citizens have rights that nobody can violate. As long as a citizen is not violating the rights of others, they are acting in accordance with these principles. Similarly, government cannot restrict or coerce individuals beyond protecting individuals from each other. If a government restricts an individual who is doing nothing to violate the rights of other citizens, government has gone too far. Government must be minimized to the extent that it only prevents citizens from violating the rights of other citizens. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty or the non-aggression principle.
At-sea burial determined best before Bin Laden's death.

"Islamic scholars split over sea burial for Bin Laden." NY Times. May 2nd, 2011: "White House officials decided before Monday’s firefight in northern Pakistan that if American troops killed Osama bin Laden, they would bury him at sea in order to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine for his followers, a White House official said Monday. They planned to include all rites associated with Muslim burials, the official added."
Evidence proves death of Osama bin Laden.

"Bin Laden's sea burial fuels conspiracy theories." Los Angeles Times. May 2, 2011: "Administration officials insisted Monday that there was no question who was killed in the Pakistani raid. Along with being visually identified on the scene by U.S. operatives, Bin Laden was identified by name by a woman believed to be one of his wives, according to a senior intelligence official. On Sunday evening, CIA specialists compared photos of the body with known photos of Bin Laden, determining with 95% certainty that they were one and the same. On Monday morning, the CIA and other agencies conducted an 'initial DNA analysis,' comparing a sample taken from the body with DNA samples from several Bin Laden family members. The results, the official said, gave them 'a virtually 100% DNA match.' The intelligence community has been collecting DNA samples from Bin Laden relatives for years, according to another U.S. intelligence official. Because the family is so big, obtaining samples was not difficult, officials said, particularly from relatives who denounce Bin Laden's activities. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a former FBI agent, confirmed that the government had more than one source of DNA. 'Through the DNA testing and other things, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was Osama bin Laden, based on the science,' he said."
At sea burial fuels conspiracy theories about US govt.

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan posted on her Facebook page: "I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you're stupid. Just think to yourself — they paraded Saddam's dead sons around to prove they were dead — why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea?"[13] Infowars, the website of Libertarian radio host Alex Jones, charged that the U.S. government had concocted the killing to justify a security crackdown. The Tea Party Nation website questioned the timing of Obama's announcement: "Don't you think OBAMA needs something to assure his reelection," one commenter wrote.[14]
Sea burial pays respect to Islam, not to Bin Laden.

McKay Coppins. "Osama Bin Laden's Controversial Sea Burial." The Daily Beast. May 2nd, 2011: "The U.S. government wasn’t paying respect to bin Laden himself, but rather to the rites of Islam – a faith with millions of peaceful adherents who would be dismayed to see the U.S. government treat the Koran’s teachings cavalierly."
Americans deserved to see Osama bin Laden's body.

Rosaleen Tallon, brother of 9/11 victim Sean Patrick Tallon, said at a press conference: "I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say I was a little dismayed — a lot dismayed, I think that was too hasty. I would've liked the American people to say without a shadow of a doubt, 'Yes, that's him.'"[15]
Forbidden fruit argument on alcohol fails on facts

Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - "As for the forbidden fruit argument, the opposite is true. Research shows that back when some states still had a minimum drinking age of 18, youths in those states who were under 21 drank more and continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s. In states where the drinking age was 21, teenagers drank less and continue to drink less through their early 20s."
21 drinking-age punishes parents who supervise drinking

"Should the US lower drinking age?". Side Effects May Vary. 13 Aug. 2007 - "I personally think the drinking age should be lowered. I also think that punishing parents who allow underage drinking at their house - while no doubt well-intentioned - is misguided. Such rules essentially punish parents who choose to be responsible and supervise their kids, while irresponsible parents who have no idea where their kids are or who they’re with face no discipline."
21-law causes kids to not seek help out of fear of punishment

Sean Flynn. "Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?". Parade.com. 12 Aug. 2007 - "Drunkenness also spawns other problems—from assaults and rapes to accidents and alcohol poisonings, both fatal and nearly so. Young adults who are drinking illegally are reluctant to summon help when things go wrong. “If a student passes out, in the old days there was usually someone around to check,” says Alan Marlatt, a psychology professor at the University of Washington who helped develop a widely used alcohol-screening program called BASICS. “Now everyone’s afraid of getting caught.”"
Lowering drinking age will undermine parental oversight

Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - "If bars and liquor stores can freely provide alcohol to teenagers, parents will be out of the loop when it comes to their children's decisions about drinking. Age 21 laws are designed to keep such decisions within the family where they belong. Our society, particularly our children and grandchildren, will be immeasurably better off if we not only leave the minimum drinking age law as it is, but enforce it better, too."
It has failed to reduce the ailing habit of drinking...

Rather it has encouraged youngsters to fall into the clutches of this really dangerous addiction. It is not at all a good idea as teenagers, who are already at a very tender age of falling prey to certain not-so-good mistakes, further get a valid license to consume alcohol and damage their livers and ruin their lives. They acquire this awful habit and get addicted to it very quickly and it not only affects their health but harshly destroys their overall personality. The thing which all know is dangerous needs to be banned and not legalised for teenaged people.
American kids binge drink; lowering drinking age would be chaos

Sean Flynn. "Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?". Parade.com. 12 Aug. 2007 - “They don’t drink the way we drank a generation ago,” says Cynthia Kuhn of Duke University, an expert on the effects of drugs and alcohol. “There’s an increasing minority who establish blood-alcohol levels that are nearly lethal.” A practice known as “front-loading”—getting drunk on cheap liquor before a night out—is common, and alcoholic blackouts are no longer rare. “It used to happen to the weird, stupid kid who couldn’t hold his liquor, and he did it once,” says Kuhn, who teaches alcohol education to student groups. “Now, it’s typical.”
Some US states are considering to lower the drinking age to 18 to allow returning soldiers to be able to legally drink

Several states are pushing legislation that would allow the drinking age to be lowered to 18. The main reason is the acknowledgment that the current legislation has failed to decrease binge drinking and health issues associated with drinking among the young. It is at the same time a form of honoring heroes that fight a battle in Iraq or Afghanistan when they are 18 and serve their country bravely but upon their return to the US they are unable to legally enjoy themselves by drinking legally.
21 drinking-age creates class of law-breakers; trivializes law

Sean Flynn. "Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?". Parade.com. 12 Aug. 2007 - "Critics of the 21-year-old drinking age contend that it is almost universally ignored and breeds a cynical disrespect for the law. About 80% of people have tried alcohol by age 20. It unrealistic to believe that someone will wait until they are 21 before they drink."
Introducing children to alcohol teaches responsible use

National Youth Rights Association. FAQ - "The National Youth Rights Association doesn't just feel we should lower the age from 21 to 18 and change nothing else. We feel larger change must occur for people under 18 as well. Alcohol must be introduced gradually and at younger ages (12 perhaps) as they do in Europe. Young people must be allowed to get their feet wet through the introduction of alcohol in small amounts in safe environments like the home."
21 drinking-age has not reduced under-age drinking

John M. McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont and founder of Choose Responsibility said, “It does not reduce drinking. It has simply put young adults at greater risk.” The federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2005, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, 85 percent of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol. Two out of five said they had binged — that is, consumed five or more drinks at one time — within the previous month.