BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democrats bad at executing their governing agenda

Ezra Klein. "Can Democrats govern?" Washington Post. January 21, 2010: "It's worth taking a step back from health-care reform for a second. What Democrats are doing isn't just abandoning a particular policy issue. They're proving themselves unable to govern. Democrats spent most of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate and about 256 in the House. They had a popular new president who was following a disastrous Republican administration and a financial crisis. The opposition party was polling somewhere between foot fungus and spoiled meat. You don't get opportunities like this very often. The Senate majority, in fact, was larger than either party had enjoyed since the 1970s. And what have Democrats accomplished? Well, not much. You can see a list here. A stimulus that was too small. Ted Kennedy's Serve America Act. Credit card regulations that were largely an acceleration of rules the Federal Reserve was going to impose anyway. I guess they almost passed a compromised health-care bill, but you don't go down in history for almosts."
Republicans use fear to win votes

Paul Krugman. "Fear Strikes Out." New York Times. March 21st, 2010: "the emotional core of opposition to [health care] reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency. It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives. And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that 'freedom dies a little bit today' and accused Democrats of 'totalitarian tactics,' which I believe means the process known as 'voting.'"
Democrats have accomplished more when in power

kgosztola. "Progressivism Fails Because Democrats are Afraid to Advance a Progressive Agenda." FireDogLake. July 21, 2010: "CAP claims (in the above cited report) progressives were responsible for: the 8-hour work day and 40-hour work week, civil service tests to replace political patronage, worker’s compensation for on-the-job accidents, national supervision of banks and the creation of a flexiblenational currency, unemployment insurance, regulation of the securities industry, prohibitions against child labor and workplace exploitations, federal insurance of bank deposits, the legal right of people to organize within labor unions and engage in, bans on speculative banking practices collective bargaining for fair wages and benefits, the constitutional right to vote, full legal equality, and the elimination, refinancing and foreclosure protections for home and farm owners of formal discrimination for women and minorities, national infrastructure including electrification, railways, airports, the graduated income and inheritance tax bridges and roads, and the Internet, protections against contaminated food and medicines, Social Security and Medicare to aid the elderly and Medicaid and CHIP to help low-income families and children, hundreds of millions of acres of protected wilderness areas, waterways, minimum wage laws and income support for the working poor and national parks, antimonopoly and anticompetitive regulations of corporations, public education, college loans and grants for students, and the GI Bill, direct elections of U.S. senators, direct primary elections of political candidates, and the initiative and referendum process in the states."
Republicans believe in supply-side economics and lower taxes.

A leading economic theory advocated by modern Republicans is supply-side economics. Some fiscal policies influenced by this theory were popularly known as Reaganomics, a term popularized during the Presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan. This theory holds that reduced income tax rates increase GDP growth and thereby generate the same or more revenue for the government from the smaller tax on the extra growth. This belief is reflected, in part, by the party's long-term advocacy of tax cuts.
Dems appreciate collective interdependence in society.

Republicans are all about the individual, protecting the individual from other people, and ensuring that the individual need not be burdened by collective issues surrounding them in society, nor the tax burdens that might be associated with dealing with these problems. But, this under-appreciates how we are connected to each other in such an intimate way; where an individual's success, in an economy, is dependent on the success and demand coming from other individuals in a society. Where someone's own education is dependent on the society that fosters it, and the education of those individuals around them. Where someone's health and safety are dependent on the sanitation, police forces, and social services available.
Republicans have accomplished more while in party

"Beliefs of the Republican party." History Learning Site: "The following is taken from the 1995 Republican Party’s history of the party as presented by the Republican Party’s National Committee. Historically, the party has supported. The abolition of slavery The right of free speech Support of women’s suffrage The reduction of the power of Federal government The reduction of Federal bureaucracy The return of power to state governments The support of the idea of the primacy of the individual To fight for the right of individuals in opposition to large "bloated" government In 1866, a Republican government passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act – a law which restricted the right of states (though this was aimed at the Southern states in particular) to restrict the right of Black Americans to testify in a court of law and to restrict the right of Black Americans to own property The Republicans proposed the 14th Amendment which became part of the Constitution. Jeanette Rankin - a Republican - became the first woman to serve in the House of Representatives, for the state of Montana. The Republicans claim that they were the first party to officially push for women’s suffrage. The Republicans claim to be the first party to favour environmental issues when President Nixon pushed for a Clean Air Act which was duly passed by Congress." [See longer list in argument page or in article].
Reps by govt, but forget it is of, by, for the people.

Republicans often bash government and celebrate the individual over government, as if we don't live in a democracy, where government is of, by, and for the people. In a democracy, the government is not an oppressive monolithic figure. Instead, it is composed of elected officials and is, therefore, controlled and directed by the will of the people. To bash government is, therefore, to bash the citizens behind it.
Higher taxes discourage hard work.

"America’s producers can compete successfully in the international arena – as long as they have a level playing field. Today’s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country."
Republicans lack compassion for the disadvantaged

David Carlin. "Why I'm Not a Republican." Inside Catholic. September 6th, 2008: "4. Democrats, I concede, put too much self-congratulatory stress on the "compassion" they feel for underdogs. Many underdogs would be better off if, instead of being the "beneficiaries" of compassion, they were told that they live in a relentlessly competitive society and that they'd better get a grip on themselves if they don't want to remain at the bottom of the league. Nonetheless, compassion for the underdog is a good thing, and many Republicans, I fear, have far too little of it. I am reminded of this almost every time I hear Rush Limbaugh on the radio: Limbaugh makes me laugh, but he also makes me cringe."
Republicans are more closely aligned with big corporations

David Carlin. "Why I'm Not a Republican." Inside Catholic. September 6th, 2008: "In a modern industrial society, it is normal that there should be two principal parties, one dominated by big business, the other by the "little people." Ever since the presidency of General Grant (1869-77), the GOP has been dominated -- and continues today to be dominated -- by big-business interests. (My Republican friends, I observe, hate to be told this, but it's true all the same.) [...] Now I have no objection to the fact that big business dominates one of our major political parties. It is right that this should be so -- what a strange world it would be if big business, with its great intelligence and vast resources, were not able to dominate one of our two parties! It's just that I, for reasons of temperament and personal history, prefer being with the party of the 'little people.'"
Democrats to help the most disadvantaged

Valerie Smith. "I'm a Democrat because..." On Being Democrat Blog. June 13th, 2005: "I'm a Democrat because I believe that we have to help the least among us. If that's healthcare for children, the elderly or the poor, if that's education for people who's family can't afford to send their children to private schools, if that's women who need abortions, when it's gays or African Americans being discriminated against, if it's working folks trying to get a fair shake. I'm a Democrat because the Democrats stand with them."
Republicans are too suspicious and critical of government

GovernmentIsGood.com: "Why a website defending government? Because, like many Americans, I am tired of the government bashing that is constantly coming from the political right. For decades conservatives have been demonizing government and not enough has been done to defend it. Ever since Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that 'Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem,' Republicans have been waging a political war against this institution. Their core message: the free market is good and government is bad. [...] Blithely ignoring anything good about government, conservatives have conducted a relentless smear campaign against this institution, portraying it as wasteful, ineffective, corrupt, oppressive, and bad for business. And wherever they have been in power, Republican officials have pursued an anti-government agenda of slashing taxes, cutting social programs, and rolling back regulations. 'Smaller government' has been the conservative mantra – except of course for the ever-growing expenditures for defense and national security."
Republicans are more friendly to businesses large and small.

The GOP is usually seen as the traditionally pro-business party and it garners major support from a wide variety of industries from the financial sector to small businesses. Republicans are about 50 percent more likely to be self-employed, and are more likely to work in the area of management. This reflects very well on Republicans, not poorly. While it is true that some of the biggest corporations in America favor Republican politicians, it is clearly also true that medium and small companies, including the self-employed, also tend to support the Republican pro-business platform. These businesses are what drive America's economy, so it is very impressive that the Republican party enjoys such wide-spread support from this community.
Govt is often only thing big enough to take on biggest challenges

GovernmentIsGood.com: "more energetic government is necessary in a whole range of areas in our society, not just in the financial sector. The anti-government philosophy of deregulation has not only proved a disaster for the financial system, but also for food safety, energy policy, and environmental protection. And cutting back taxes has led to school budgets being slashed, public safety workers being laid off, poor children being denied medical care, and bridges and roads falling into dangerous disrepair. The election of Barack Obama signaled that many Americans were beginning to realize that government is not the problem; it is actually the only solution to most of the pressing problems we face as a nation – including infrastructure decay, rising unemployment, global warming, and a worsening health care crisis."
Gender pay gap narrowed under Reps due to sluggish male salaries.

Lane Kenworthy. "Vote Republican if You Want Equal Pay?" Consider the Evidence. September 13, 2008: "In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Casey Mulligan points out that over the past half century the pay gap between women and men has shrunk more under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. The following chart shows this. The data are from the Census Bureau. Mulligan argues that the best way to achieve equal pay is therefore “to work for a labor market that creates opportunities for women like it did during the Reagan and the Bush years.” But as the next two charts indicate, the Republican advantage in closing the gender pay gap owes mainly to slow earnings growth for men during Republican administrations, rather than rapid earnings growth for women."
Republicans believe in helping others by ending dependence on govt

Can Tran. "Democrat vs. Republican: Political philosophies." Helium: "Overall, the Republican philosophy is opposed to the role of a larger government. It would mean the government does not impose on your money, your freedoms, your lives, and so forth. This is overall good as it teaches people to be independent. The people within the GOP do believe in helping people out. However, it encourages people to not constantly depend on the government. The GOP philosophy encourages a strong will of independent will."
Robust government has been an amazing force for good

GovernmentIsGood.com: "But what exactly does it mean to say that government is good? It means that, on balance, government programs have a very positive impact on the lives of all Americans – that government has been a powerful force for good in our society. It is not an exaggeration to say that a good portion of the improvement in the quality of Americans’ lives during the last 100 years has been due to the efforts of our federal, state, and local governments. Consider, for instance, the wide variety of vital roles and functions that big government plays in our society. Things like providing roads and sewers and other essential infrastructure facilities, preventing economic depressions, eliminating horrible diseases like polio and smallpox, ensuring drinkable water and breathable air, dispensing justice, providing retirement security, preventing business abuses, sponsoring stunning scientific breakthroughs, feeding the hungry, recalling unsafe products, educating our children, reducing workplace injuries and deaths, responding to disasters and emergencies, preventing crime, protecting civil liberties, rescuing endangered species, ensuring the safety of drugs, guarding our national security, caring for the elderly, and so on."
Republicans have better closed the gender wage gap.

Casey Mulligan. "Vote Republican If You Want Equal Pay." Wall Street Journal. September 12th, 2008: "Johnson, Carter and Bill Clinton were all Democrats, yet none of them witnessed much labor market progress for women during their administrations. Essentially all of the labor-market progress for women occurred during Republican administrations: eight years of Reagan, four years of George H.W. Bush, and six years of George W. Bush (I do not yet have the data for the last two years of the current administration). By 2006, the gender wage gap had narrowed to 21%. The Nixon-Ford administrations were the only Republican administrations that failed to witness significant reduction in the gender wage gap during their terms. Sen. Obama says that he wants equal pay for women. If the historical record is any guide, the best way to achieve this is to work for a labor market that creates opportunities for women like it did during the Reagan and the Bush years. At the Reagan-Bush years' pace, the gender wage gap in 2016 would be down to about 12%. At the Carter-Clinton years' pace, women will not see new opportunities, and the gender pay gap will be essentially where it is today."
Needle exchange harm-reduction puts expediency over principle.

There are certain principles that should not be sacrificed to expediency. The individual choice to do drugs should be met sternly with the principle that it is wrong and that an individual that chooses to do drugs should suffer the consequences on their own, without burdening other taxpayers. The idea of needle exchange harm reduction sacrifices these principles to the expediency of reducing harm to the individuals involved. Such infractions on principle fore expediency's sake are inappropriate.
Needle exchanges are cost-effective HIV prevention

"Does HIV Needle Exchange Work?". Center for AIDS prevention studies. November 1998: "Is needle exchange cost-effective? Yes. The median annual budget for running a program was $169,000 in 1992. Mathematical models based on those data predict that needle exchanges could prevent HIV infections among clients, their sex partners, and offspring at a cost of about $9,400 per infection averted. 16 This is far below the $195,188 lifetime cost of treating an HIV-infected person at present. 17 A national program of NEPs would have saved up to 10,000 lives by 1995."
Needle exchanges decrease infections and therefore costs

"Are Needle Exchange Programs a Good Idea?" by Jenny Murphy, Bryan Knowles;Thursday, June 15, 2000": "An article in the medical journal Lancet estimated that 4,400 to 10,000 HIV infections among U.S. intravenous drug users could have been avoided between 1987 and 1995 if the federal government had implemented syringe exchange nationally, saving over $500 million in health care costs. Action taken in early 1997 could have prevented an additional 11,000 infections by the year 2000, saving over $600 million."
Needle exchanges help protect families of drug-abusers

Alan Franciscus. "Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health". Hepatitis. April/June 2003: Dawn Day, a Catholic priest and member of the New Jersey Governor's Advisory Council on AIDS: "I believe we have an obligation to permit people who inject drugs to have access to sterile needles so they can protect their health. Injection drug users are also God's children. And, like the reckless driver in the example above, people who inject drugs have wives, husbands, and babies. When we abandon the person who injects drugs to HIV/AIDS, we are abandoning their non-drug injecting partners and babies as well. God has given us knowledge with which to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS to all these people. Let us use it."[4]
Needle exchanges send wrong message, approving drug-use

Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Due to their potential to take more risks, young people must receive a clear 'NO' on Drugs: Harm reduction campaigns like NEPs send the wrong message to the community and to young people. Rather than supporting the 'zero tolerance' message that they are most likely receiving from home and currently in school, NEPs send the message 'if you do decide to take drugs, we’ll help you with clean needles'."
Needle exchanges are key to fighting HIV/AIDS, saving lives

Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004: "Research has shown needle exchange programs (NEPs) offer a number of public health benefits in the prevention and reduction of IDUs’ exposure to HIV, HBV, HCV and other diseases. For example: 􀂃 New Haven, Connecticut found a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. 􀂃 Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. 􀂃 HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. 􀂃 IDUs in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."
Needle exchanges increase crime

Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Crime Increases in Area of Needle Exchanges: - Crimes Due to Drug Use: When a needle exchange program (NEP) moves in, associated crime and violence follows, including prostitution which contributes to the spread of AIDS. A spokesperson from the Coalition for a Better Community, a NY City based group opposed to NEPs, visited the Lower East Side Needle Exchange with a NY Times reporter. Their conclusion: “Since the NEP began we’ve seen an increase in dirty syringes on our streets, in schools yards, and in our parks…Brazen addicts shoplift, loot, and steal to buy drugs."
Needle exchanges benefit their areas of implementation.

William Martin. "Other Countries Have Demonstrated Benefits of Needle Exchange Programs." OpposingViews.com. "While opposed by some on the grounds that it seemed to be condoning drug use, needle exchange programs (NEPs) quickly proved to be an effective means of reducing the incidence of blood-borne diseases in both countries and have been widely recognized as a valid part of a good public health policy and practice in many other parts of the world. In such programs, addicts receive a clean needle for every used one they turn in, thus limiting careless or dangerous disposal of needles. In some locales, syringes can also be easily obtained from pharmacies or even from vending machines. These are not only more convenient, but encourage the use of clean needles by IDUs who may be reluctant to signal their addiction by going to an NEP."
Social services for addicts can be centered around needle exchanges

"Needle exchange options; pros and cons". Canada.com. March 21, 2008: "Pros: The St. John Ambulance building on Pandora Avenue is only about two blocks away from the current Cormorant Street needle exchange, meaning drug addicts are already in the area. The St. John building is, however, considerably larger and beside the new Our Place, which offers transitional housing, outreach programs, social services, and amenities like washrooms for people living on the street. The new building will also house health professionals to diagnose, test and treat this sickly population. The building will house about 50 health care and social service providers including Assertive Community Treatment outreach teams, doctors, nurses, addiction counsellors, social workers and street nurses. Police would also have a presence inside and outside the building to maintain public order. More flexible hours of operation, and the possible use of a courtyard, mean drug users won't congregate all at once outside the building."