BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existing checks and balances

Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this. Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.  Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required. Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.
Growing partisanship

The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging. This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement[1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable.[2] While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy.[3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.     [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,  http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/15/the-tea-party-revolution [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Republican-right-moderate-teaparty/2011/... [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc
Parties as coalitions

The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism.[1] Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on. The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view. In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams. [1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-five-strands-of-conse_b_18...
Checks and balances

Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court. In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition. Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check.[1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate. [1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009, http://swampland.time.com/2009/04/28/a-filibuster-proof-majority/
Constitutional imperative

It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.[1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party. [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/26/us-debt-crisis-talks-impasse
How Congress Works

Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation. Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it.
The Gulf states are themselves not bastions of freedom

Refugees can’t be choosers in a situation where their country has been destroyed. A survey conducted among refugees arriving in Germany showed that around 68% of the people fled just to save themselves from the imminent threat.[1] The Gulf States may not be a model of democracy and human rights but migrants would be considerably safer than in Syria. [1] Von Martin, ‘Survey amongst Syrian refugees in Germany – Backgrounds’, adopt a revolution, 7 October 2015, https://www.adoptrevolution.org/en/survey-amongst-syrian-refugees-in-germany-backgrounds/
ISIS could infiltrate to Gulf States

The incidents that occurred in Europe were involving native Europeans themselves, although they did travel to and back from Syria. Just like Europe could have home grown terrorists, the same likeliness applies to the gulf states. In fact statistics even show that one of the highest number of recruits for Daesh has been those from Saudi Arabia.[1] [1] The Economist, ‘It ain’t half hot here, mum’, 28 August 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21614226-why-and-how-westerners-go-fight-syria-and-iraq-it-aint-half-hot-here-mum
The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad

The effort to fund and arm the rebels has not shown any result, it’s been over 4 years and yet nothing has solved the problem. Rather the situation has got steadily worse with moderate opposition first losing out to Daesh, and then to Assad since Russian air support tipped the balance. Arming rebel groups simply helps to perpetuate the civil war and ensure that refugees cannot return home.
The Gulf states are a convenient place to settle Syrian refugees

With language being the basis of communication, and most of the gulf state’s population speaking in Arabic, which is the language widely spoken by Syrians the Gulf states are a natural choice to take in refugees.  Syria and the Gulf states also have similar cultures. Both of these make it easier for refugees to interact with natives, build up a social network, and find work. Studies from the US have implied that it is best to send migrants (refugees) to places where there is such a network they can quickly plug into which improves the prospects of the migrants getting jobs.[1] [1] Beaman, Lori A., ‘Social Networks and the Dynamics of Labour Market Outcomes: Evidence from Refugees Resettled in the U.S.’, Berkeley University, 15 November 2006, http://are.berkeley.edu/documents/seminar/JMP_Social%20Networks.pdf, P.31
The Gulf states have a moral responsibility to take in Syrian refugees

It is a moral responsibility for gulf states to take in Syrian refugees both in terms of common humanity and as they all belong to the same culture and regional organisations (i.e. The Arab League). The numbers taken by the gulf states look particularly irresponsible looking it as a comparison to the number that European countries have taken in. Amnesty International has accused the gulf states of offering zero resettlement places.[1] [1] Amnesty International, ‘Facts & Figures: Syria refugee crisis & international resettlement’, 5 December 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/12/facts-figures-syria-refugee-crisis-international-resettlement/
European countries have taken in a huge number of refugees while gulf states have taken none

There were 1,294,000 claims for asylum in Europe in 2015 with more than a fifth of these coming originally from Syria.[1] Although many Arab states have shouldered their share of the burden, particularly neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, the Gulf at the same time have taken in almost nil refugees. The Gulf states are rich countries, particularly by comparison to their neighbours that are taking up the burden. Per capita income in Jordan is $5,160 compared to $25,140 in Saudi Arabia and $44,600 in UAE as such they can afford to do much more.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts’, 18 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911 [2] World Bank, data.worldbank.org, http://data.worldbank.org/country/jordan
Gulf countries could benefit from refugees

Just like Gulf countries have greatly benefitted from expat immigration, the U.A.E being a great example of such growth where the expat population is estimated to be 84% of the UAE population[1], Gulf countries in the same way can make use of Syrian refugees immigrating. Syrian refugees can provide cheap labour on the Gulf states ambitious construction projects as well as helping to provide an educated workforce that can help diversify the gulf states economies away from oil. [1] Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, ‘Give expats and opportunity to earn UAE citizenship’, Gulf News, 22 September 2013, http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/give-expats-an-opportunity-to-earn-uae-citizenship-1.1234167
The Gulf states are themselves not bastions of freedom

Syrians are leaving Syria as a result of a civil war born out of the Arab Spring, it was an attempt to gain more freedom within a dictatorship.[1] Such a population is unlikely to wish to move to a country where freedoms are often restricted. All the countries of the Gulf are monarchies, often with only the barest touch of democracy electing rubber stamp parliaments. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch have highlighted the violence which many migrants suffer and large numbers are exploited.[2] [1] Ali, Jasim, ‘Gulf states need to aim higher on freedom parameter’, Gulf News, 4 September 2015, http://gulfnews.com/business/analysis/gulf-states-need-to-aim-higher-on-freedom-parameter-1.1578190 [2] Begum, Rothna, ‘Gulf States Fail to Protect Domestic Workers From Serious Violence’, hrw.org, 16 October 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/16/gulf-states-fail-protect-domestic-workers-serious-violence
ISIS could infiltrate to Gulf States

The 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris show that ISIS has the ability to infiltrate countries through refugees. Although the participants in these attacks had been living in France and Brussels some had also been to fight in Syria and at least one, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, returned along the migrant route.[1] This shows that influxes of refugees could pose great threat to gulf countries and Daesh has already claimed terrorist attacks in Kuwait.[2] Even before the rise of ISIS gulf states were concerned about the security risks posed by migrant workers with Bahrain’s Minister of Labour Majid Al-Alawi stating migrant workers are a strategic threat.[3] [1] Holehouse, Matthew, and Samuel, Henry, ‘Terrorist ringleader got into EU as ‘refugee’’, The Telegraph, 20 November 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12006892/International-manhunt-underway-after-French-police-let-Paris-attacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html [2] Cafiero, Giorgio, ‘The ‘Islamic State’ Attacks Kuwait’, Huffington Post, 1 July 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giorgio-cafiero/the-islamic-state-attacks_b_7690374.html [3] Rahman, Anisur, ‘Migration and Human Rights in the Gulf’, Middle East Institute, 2 February 2010, http://www.mei.edu/content/migration-and-human-rights-gulf
The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad

Gulf countries have been trying to fix the problem politically rather than taking in a few refugees, which would be beneficial to most of the Syrians? The vast majority of Syrians would prefer to go home to a Syria with the civil war over and preferably with Assad gone. The gulf starts, are the main powers working to see this happen. While the US has helped arm some rebel groups the funding for this was provided by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have gone further than the west in terms of providing arms.[1] [1] Mazzetti, Mark and Apuzzo, Matt, ‘U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels’, The New York Times, 23 January 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0
The Gulf states are a convenient place to settle Syrian refugees

The affinity as a result of joint linguistic and cultural ties between Syrians and the gulf may be of little use if the refugees are heavily restricted in where they live or can do. If they are put into camps with little contact with the outside world the refugees could simply be cut off from this social network. Syria’s neighbours have generally been unwilling to integrate refugee populations; Jordan has had Palestinian refugees for almost half a century yet nearly 370,000 are still in refugee camps.[1] [1] ‘Where we work; Jordan’ United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 1 July 2014, http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan
The Gulf states have a moral responsibility to take in Syrian refugees

Moral responsibility is not about comparisons if it were then what about those European countries that have not been open armed like in Hungary they have made it illegal to help Syrian refugees[1]. Riot police in Hungary have used teargas and water cannon to send them off.[2] Saudi Arabia has been doing enough to account for its moral responsibility; it has given residency to 100,000 Syrians.[3] [1] Frayer, Lauren, ‘Risking Arrest, Thousands of Hungarians offer help to refugees’, NPR, 29 September 2015, http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/29/444447532/risking-arrest-thousands-of-hungarians-offer-help-to-refugees [2] Weaver, Matthew, and Siddique, Haroon, ‘Refugee crisis: Hungary uses teargas and water cannon at Serbia border – as it happened’, theguardian.com, 16 September 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates [3] The Guardian, ‘Saudi Arabia says criticism of Syria refugee response ‘false and misleading’, 12 September 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/saudi-arabia-says-reports-of-its-syrian-refugee-response-false-and-misleading
Gulf countries could benefit from refugees

Unfortunately the refugee crisis is not happening at a good time economically for the Gulf. Oil prices have slumped. As a result there is a turbulent economy with many losing their jobs.[1] There is high levels of competition for those jobs that do exist and in the gulf people often get their jobs through influence (Wasta, as it is known in gulf countries) of acquaintances/friends, which would serve to shut refugees out of the jobs market. [1] Reuters, ‘FGB announces 100 job cuts in UAE’, Gulf News, 24 November 2015, http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/banking/fgb-announces-100-job-cuts-in-uae-1.1625342
Negative campaigning reduces the diversity and representativeness of government.

Politics is a tough game, and those that decide to play it should expect to come away bruised. Politicians, almost by definition, seek publicity and the attention of the media. They should, therefore, be prepared to accept that positive press coverage will inevitably turn negative. Much as debaters are trained to continue delivering clear and structured speeches in the face of badgering POIs, indifferent judges and poorly behaved opponents, we should expect our politicians to be tough enough to give a robust defence of their policies and actions, no matter how pernicious the attacks launched against them. This is the only way in which we can be certain of their skills as a political operator and their commitment to the ideological cause they claim to support. Politicians with families are consistently perceived as more trustworthy and competent than those who lack familial ties. A family is a useful general indicator of a politician’s willingness to set aside personal ambition and self-interest, and invest himself wholly in ensuring the well-being of others. Likewise, a politician who welcomes attacks on his character and policies and fights vigorously to defend them is also more likely to have a clean past. Moreover, due to the organic and emergent nature of interactions that occur between states on the international stage, politicians will not have access to the types of legal protection proposed by the resolution when doing business with the representatives of other nations. Coddled politicians will lack the pragmatism and guile necessary to effectively represent western nations’ interests in the international community.
Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.

It is not possible for a politician to win on a no-policy platform. As proposition points out, negative campaigning does little to convince its target’s supporters of the wisdom of the attacker’s policies. A politician who decides to use attack adverts in his campaign will not be able to transfer support from his opponents’ tickets to his. Thus, a politician who wants to employ negative campaigning tactics must already be confident that he has an existing support base and policies that other voters will be attracted to. Policy making and analysis remains the meat and drink of politics. The politics of the personal is reserved for campaigning season. Moreover, negative campaigning tactics are reserved for closely fought constituencies, states or districts. Side proposition does not give politicians credit for recognising that voters are rational individuals motivated by reasoned arguments. Where negative campaigning is used in public polls, it is usually deployed at the end of a protracted a very closely fought campaign. The number of negative adverts broadcast by a politician is usually tied to the closeness of a campaign itself. Moreover, negative campaigning can assist candidates who may be seeking to implement new policies, but lack the necessary name recognition and financial backing to succeed against a more experienced competitor. Negative campaigning, even if it is unable to instantly generate loyalty, may at least help to compel voters to seek out alternative perspectives on the issues over which an election is fought. Indeed, recommendations by the political consultancy business Complete Campaigns indicate that similar strategies have been successfully employed by their previous clients[i]. [i] Negative Campaigning. Complete Campaigns. http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8
Identifying strong, honest candidates.

Use of negative campaigning in primaries may help to build support among voters who already identify with a particular party, but it can also lower a politician in the view of undecided or swing voters. Primaries, now more than ever, are public contests, given as much attention by the media as elections themselves. Mudslinging tactics deployed by candidates during a primary are likely to give ammunition to opponents in any ensuing election. The fact that all participants in an election are likely to have engaged in negative campaigning at one time or another is beside the point – the activity is harmful in and of itself, because of its ability to engender apathy. Negative campaigning in political primaries fuels further negative campaigning during general elections. Even if, as opposition suggest, an aggressive primary campaign is useful for winnowing out weak and compromised candidates, negative campaigning in the election that follows will prevent those “strong” candidates from disseminating useful, political positive information. As noted in proposition’s second substantive argument, the strongest candidate many not always be the individual best able to respond to slanderous and fear-mongering attack adverts. Intelligence, compassion, charisma and technical expertise do not always go hand in hand with a thick skin and the ability to dig dirt.
The difficulty of identifying attack adverts and negative messages.

It is perfectly easy to rule on what is positive and negative. It is true that some positive broadcasts might be meant to play up the strengths of one candidate, precisely because that’s where his opponent is weakest – but that approach still represents an improvement on the current situation, where the majority of campaign media focuses on the flaw of a candidate’s rivals. Subjectivity has no role to play in the verification of objective facts. Currently, many campaign adverts are based around misrepresenting the content of an opposition candidate’s policies, or making far-fetched connections between negative social or economic trends and bills that a particular candidate voted in favour of. Questioning the objective distance of the body that would enforce the rules created by the resolution is also ineffective. Judges are appointed based on their ability to analyse and sift complicated arguments based on disputed or compromised sets of facts. There is no reason to assume that similar principles of neutrality and respect for the separation of powers within a democratic state would not also apply to reformed election laws