BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pursuing divided government is premised on fear of politics

Michael Kinsley. "McCain's Last Mistake. Undivided government won't be as bad as he warned it would be." Slate. 4 Nov. 2008 - "People who want divided government are afraid of politics. They imagine that under divided government, the wise elders of both parties would sit around a table and "rise above politics" with pragmatic solutions for everything. But it doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. Our disagreements are generally about trade-offs—money for some new government benefit, the blood of our young for some foreign-policy goal, freedom for protection from terrorists, bureaucracy for the safety of drugs or cars or financial derivatives. All of these trade-offs could be settled by letting some board of elders split the difference. But then it wouldn't be much of a democracy, would it?"
Compromise is still necessary under one-party rule

"The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant". 2008 Central. 8 Jul. 2008 - "This is also true when the same party is in control of Congress and the White House. I’ll take the Farm Bill and raise him every other bill I’ve mentioned: Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, Katrina Bills, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, etc. Even the poorly organized Democrats were able to negotiate somewhat with those. Moreover, even with undivided government, when negotiation failed, bills did not pass (Social Security)."
The Supreme Court still checks one-party rule

"The hypocrisy of the 'One-Party Rule' Gambit". Informed Comment. 28 Oct. 2008 - "Second, the Democrats do not have the supreme court, and there is no early prospect of a firm Democratic majority on it. The conservatives on it are still fairly young and energetic. Thomas and Scalia are very far right, and Alito and Roberts only a little less so. Kennedy is a swing vote but not exactly a liberal. The likely retirements will mostly come from the ranks of liberals, so that Obama and a Democratic congress will only be able to maintain a status quo. It is true that they can stop a far-right putsch on the Court, but that is hardly one party rule."
Voters prefer divided government over one-party rule

"Divided We Stand". The Atlantic. October 2004 - "The voters like divided government (shorthand for when one party controls the White House and the other controls at least one house of Congress). That is what they tell pollsters, and that is how they vote, having given control of both branches to one party in fewer than five of the past twenty-four years (1993-1994, half of 2001, and 2003-2004)."
Minority Party always argues for divided government

Liz Sidoti. "McCain's Warning: Perils Of One-Party Rule". Huffington Post. 26 Oct. 2008 - "the Republicans did have one-party rule in 2000-2006 and really did have all three branches of government under their control. Can anyone think of any major Republican leader in that period who argued that it was a bad thing and who urged voters to cast ballots for Democrats in order to restore some checks and balances?"
Divided government impedes sound governance

"The One-Party Rule Scare". Connecting The Dots. 27 Oct. 2008 - "Since Americans have an innate mistrust of concentrated power, the notion [of divided government] could gain traction for voters with short memories. They would have to forget the past two years [2006-2008] of 'checks and balances' [a Republican president and Democratic Congress] that prevented extending health care to impoverished children and setting reasonable timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, among other majority desires."
Voters preferred on-party rule in 2008 US elections

Linda Feldmann. "Ups and downs in history of one-party rule". Christian Science Monitor. 28 Oct. 2008 - "the American public is showing unprecedented support for one-party rule in Washington, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Fifty percent of likely voters say they would prefer that the same party control both the White House and Congress, a new high for that poll. Thirty percent said they wanted split-party rule."
Divided government lifts up better, more centrist ideas

Steve Chapman. "The Welcome Return of Divided Government". Real Clear Politics. 9 Nov. 2006 - "When federal power was last split, some of the GOP's good ideas became law: replacing welfare with workfare, curbing the growth of spending and forcing the government to live within its means. And many of its bad ideas -- authorizing state-sponsored prayer in schools, criminalizing leaks of classified material -- went nowhere."
The most successful US presidencies enjoyed one-party rule

"Down with Divided Government". The New Republic. 27 Oct. 2008 - "Let’s first look at those past administrations that enjoyed singular success. Most lists would include George Washington’s two terms, Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Theodore Roosevelt’s (just about) two terms, and Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms. A longer list not based on consensus might include Thomas Jefferson’s first term, Andrew Jackson’s two terms, Woodrow Wilson’s first term, Harry Truman’s two terms, and Ronald Reagan’s two terms. Of the consensus choices, all enjoyed a united government (in George Washington’s days, there were not really parties)."
Voters do not actually choose divided government

Michael Kinsley. "McCain's Last Mistake. Undivided government won't be as bad as he warned it would be." Slate. 4 Nov. 2008 - "almost no one actually chooses divided government. Almost everyone who votes for Obama also votes Democratic for the Senate and the House. Ditto McCain and the Republicans. Divided government results when those totals are close, and just a few ticket-splitters can produce a divided result. McCain was not asking voters to split their tickets. He was urging Republicans tempted to vote for Obama not to split their tickets, for fear that undivided government would be the result."
The worst US presidencies involved divided government

"Down with Divided Government". The New Republic. 27 Oct. 2008 - Now let’s look at the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations--where charges of impeachment were brought, and recriminations paralyzed the government. That would have to include the administrations of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton--all instances of divided government. I’d also add the last two years of Wilson’s second term when divided government (and Wilson’s illness) set America on the track of irresponsibility in foreign and domestic policy. So if you look at America’s moments of glory and ignominy, the conclusion is inescapable: divided government is a curse, not a blessing, and should be avoided, if at all possible.
Presidents can effectively control members of their own Party

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said in October of 2008, "If there were huge majorities in the House and the Senate and John McCain were president, it is more likely that Congress would flex their muscle and do whatever they wanted to do regardless of John McCain — because they wouldn’t need John McCain’s approval. On the other hand, if you have Barack Obama in the White House, he believes in bipartisan cooperation. He wants to change this ‘I control the mountain and therefore I will move the mountain mentality’ in Washington."[5]
One-party rule leads to corruption

Michael Merritt. "The Case For Divided Government". PoliGazette. July 8th, 2008. - "So why is having unified government so bad? Well, for starters, it leads to all sorts of corruption. You only need to look at the Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and Mark Foley scandals to see what can happen when politicians get too comfortable with their own power. … As well as scandals in Congress, scandals in the executive branch can also go unchecked with unified government. Just look at the U.S. Attorney scandal, treatment of enemy combatants, and others."
One-party rule helps a government respond to crises

Michael Kinsley. "McCain's Last Mistake. Undivided government won't be as bad as he warned it would be." Slate. 4 Nov. 2008 - "If you really long for change, divided government is the last thing you should want. In a parliamentary system, like the one in Britain, divided government is impossible. You vote for the party, not the person. Whichever party wins the most seats or can cobble together a majority through alliances with other parties gets to form a government and choose a prime minister. The winning party is generally able to enact its agenda. More important, that party can be held accountable if it does not enact its agenda or if it does and the policies fail."
One-party rule requires unlikely Senate super-majority

"The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant". 2008 Central. 8 Jul. 2008 - "One party has total control only if they have 60 members of the Senate, one reasons liberals are going crazy over that number this year. This is exceptionally unlikely to happen this year. Nate Silver projects that there is only about a 17% chance of that happening given the electorate."
Political corruption exists in divided government too

"The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant". 2008 Central. 8 Jul. 2008 - "Corruption is a worry not for divided government, but for parties that have any power whatsoever. As appealing as it would be if no party had power, that seems unrealistic. Moreover, it’s not just Republicans that have a monopoly on corruption; Democrats like William Jefferson are not squeaky clean, either.
One-party rule makes military spending and war more likely

William A. Niskanen. "A Case for Divided Government". CATO. 7 May 2003 - "Point Three. The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.[..]Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century."
Good one-party rule requires following people's will

"GOP Candidates Warn Against One-Party Rule". Washington Post. 26 Oct. 2008 - "The key is to keep the mandate straight, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a member of the House leadership and a senior Clinton White House aide. "There are certain things that people this year are voting for and certain things they're voting against. We'll be successful as a party if we're known as the party of reform. We will be unsuccessful if we do things the way they've always been done."
Executive foreign policy is hardly constrained in a divided government

"The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant". 2008 Central. 8 Jul. 2008 - "in terms of foriegn policy, the development the past 50 years has strongly favored the President over Congress. Indeed, Bush has been able to do almost whatever he wanted in foreign policy, even after the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. Bill Clinton initiated the Kosovo campaign in the middle of being impeached."
China cannot be expected to have already fixed Tibet

China has done the best it could with Tibet's backwards economic, political system. While Tibet continues to have economic problems, this is not surprising. In 1950, Tibet was a backward, Third World country. China has modernized Tibet substantially from this terribly primitive starting point. That problems persist in Tibet is no surprise. These problems are largely a result of Tibet's primitive beginnings when China took over the country in 1950. Tibet still has a long way to go, and China will continue to push it in the right direction. But, China should not be blamed for having not quite yet completing the project.
Tibet had only satellite relationship with the Manchus (Qing, 1644-1911)

"Tibet and China: Two Distinct Views". Rangzen.org. Retrieved 17.4.08 - "During the Manchu rule (1644-1911), the Qing army was asked by Tibetans to settle disputes. But, this does not support China's right to Tibet. If it did, then the U.S.A. should claim Kuwait and Haiti since it assisted these countries. In fact, on a number of occasions, Tibet exercised power over China, suggesting that perhaps Tibet should claim China!"
It would be good for the world for other legitimate secessionist movements to succeed in achieving independence.

In history, and especially in the 20th century, states have established independence for good reason and with positive effect on the international system. After India gained her independence, a whole succession of African and Asian nations also became free from their European colonial "masters". In the nineties, with the fall of the Berlin wall, another series of countries gained their freedom, this time from the Soviet yoke. Tibetan independence could well precipitate, or at least herald, a new era of freedom not only for neighbouring countries such as Burma, East Turkestan, and Southern Mongolia but even for the people of China itself. These are not developments to be feared, but are positive phenomena in the world.
The right to self-determination must be offered sparingly to avoid international instability.

Any right to self-determination cannot be offered liberally in the international system. It must be offered extremely conservatively, and it must be known that the criteria are highly, highly selective. If the criteria are not conservatively applied in Tibet's case, than literally dozens of break-away regions around the world will seek independence, destabilizing the international system. This is one of the reasons why self-determination should really only be offered for especially grievous circumstances.
Foreign powers are simply meddling in China through Tibet.

Finally, the PRC considers all pro-independence movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, including British attempts to establish control in the late 19th century and early 20th century [23], the CIA's backing of Tibetan insurgents during the 1950s and 1960s, [24][25] and the Government of Tibet in Exile today, [20] as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty, or destabilizing China, thereby weakening China's position in the world [26].
China's economic modernization of Tibet has improved living standards

The lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; it has 22,500 km of highways, all built since 1950; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.
A right to self-determination should only be offered for especially grievous circumstances, which does not include Tibet.

While Tibet may have good reasons to complain about its circumstances under China, its circumstances are not that bad. Bad would be the mass genocide and murder of Tibetans. There are relatively few deaths in Tibets case on account of the Chinese government's police presence there. The main concerns are that many Tibetans have been imprisoned, they are subject to some human rights abuses, they are deprived of their leader the Dalai Lama. These may be bad problems, but they are not egregious in the grand global perspective of genocides and mass murders that are occurring. Given the international communities' limited ability to respond to international grievances, the Tibetan case simply does not qualify for immediate attention.
The Qing Dynasty handled Tibetan affairs on behalf of the Central Government

When the Qing Dynasty [1644-1911] replaced the Ming Dynasty in 1644, it further strengthened administration over Tibet. (A High Commission was set up in Lhasa in 1727 under an 'amban' [imperial resident], who supervised the "handling of Tibetan affairs on behalf of the central government," and who enjoyed "equal standing with the Dalai Lama...").
Tibet was an independent state between 1911 and 1950

Michael C. van Walt, an international legal scholar and a board member of the International Campaign for Tibet. "Tibet File No.18: The Legal Status of Tibet". Cultural Survival Quarterly (Vol. 12, 1988) - "From 1911 to 1950, Tibet successfully avoided undue foreign influence and behaved, in every respect, as a fully independent state. The 13th Dalai Lama emphasised his country's independent status externally, in formal communications to foreign rulers, and internally, by issuing a proclamation reaffirming Tibet's independence and by strengthening the country's defenses. Tibet remained neutral during the Second World War, despite strong pressure from China and its allies, Britain and the USA. The Tibetan Government maintained independent international relations with all neighbouring countries, most of whom had diplomatic representatives in Lhasa.
The United Nations does charter discourages disruptions of national unity such as a move to Tibetan Independence.

The Chinese government insists that the United Nations documents, which codifies the principle of self-determination, provides that the principle shall not be abused in disrupting territorial integrity: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...."[40]
China's invasion of Tibet invalidates its right to govern it

Daniel Smith. "Self-Determination in Tibet. The Politics of Remedies". 1997 - "whenever it is determined that genocide has been perpetrated against a people, there should be a concomitant right to secession exercisable at its option. The reasoning is simple: no aggressor committing genocide against a people can be entrusted with that people's welfare into the future. Such an aggressor ceases to possess any credibility in dealing with an oppressed people. If a people oppressed by genocide were not guaranteed the right to secede, this would be tantamount to rewarding the oppressor to the very extent it had succeeded in committing genocide--a morally perverse and illogical result. [88] Genocide, the worst of transgressions in international law, must be accorded a remedy, and that remedy should be the fullest expression of self-determination--complete autonomy as manifested in independence. Invoking such a right in the case of the Tibetans, who have been documented as being the victims of genocide and other human rights violations, would make their claim to independence absolutely compelling, legally as well as morally."
Tibetan independence was recognized by world powers during WWII

Great Powers such as the United States and Great Britain recognized the independence of Tibet during WWII and requested permission from the Tibetan government to allow entry of their military troops into the territory of Tibet. While the recognition was not always official, it existed nevertheless. And, in reaction to the Chinese invasion of 1949, there were many "silent" protests among great powers. While "silent" for geopolitical reasons at the time, these protests demonstrate how the world saw China's invasion as illegitimate.
Parts of Qinghai and Western Sichuan are essentially Tibetan and should therefore be united with Tibet if Tibet ever becomes independent.

These areas have long been historically part of Tibet and were separated from Tibet when China invaded. These areas have still a reasonably high percentage of Tibetan population despite the Chinese government's ongoing efforts to demographically destroy Tibet's claims to these areas. The regions of Garzê, Ngawa,Haixi, Haibei, Hainan, Huangnan, Yushu, and Golog are recognised by the Chinese government as Tibetan "autonomous" regions. The fact that the Chinese government recognise that these places are essentially Tibetan provides further reason for them to be reunited with Tibet.
The Tibetan Government in Exile has strong democratic designs for Tibet.

"Proving Truth from Facts". Released by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile on 7 July 1993 partly in response to China's white paper. - "Soon after his arrival in India, the Dalai Lama set up the Government-in-Exile and a series of democratic changes was initiated. A popularly elected body of people's representatives, known as the Assembly of Tibetan People¹s Deputies,was constituted and a draft constitution for the future Tibet promulgated. The constitution contained a clause whereby the executive powers of the Dalai Lama could be curtailed by a majority of two-thirds of the total members of the National Assembly.
China focuses great attention on developing Tibet

"Chinese gov't continues favorable policy in Tibet". Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States. (11/27/06) - "The Chinese central government always attaches great importance to the work in Tibet, having held four working conferences on Tibet since the start of reform and opening-up policy at the end of 1970s, and formulated a series of favorable and supportive policies to accelerate the economic development there and maintain stability."
San Yet-sen announced in 1911 unification China with Tibet

"Tibet: Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation," also known as the "China White Paper". Issued by Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China in September 1992. (The definitive Chinese Government line on Tibet) - "The Qing Dynasty was overthrown in the 1911 Chinese Revolution. During his inauguration speech as first president of the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen announced 'the unification of the Han [Chinese], Manchu, Mongol, Hui and Tibetan peoples.'"
Between 1911 and 1950, Tibet was represented diplomatically by China.

Tibet itself acknowledged Chinese sovereignty by sending delegates to the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925; to the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931; to the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931; to a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946; and to another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948. It would not have done so if it was an independent country.
Tibet has enjoyed independence for the vast majority of its long history

Tibet has existed as a state since 127 B.C. For nearly a millennium after its founding, it was entirely independent. In the 9th century, China and Tibet struck a deal to respect each other's sovereignty, securing Tibet's continued independence. In the 13th and 14th centuries, Tibet was subjugated by the Mongols as were the Chinese. During this time, Tibet could not have been considered part of China; both China and Tibet were conquered by the Mongols. Between the 14th and early 20th centuries, Tibet assumed some close relations with China, but always maintained its independence. In its closest relations, it could have been considered a vassal state of China, in which it paid tribute to China and received protection. But, the relationship was never denied the Tibetan government of its full independence to govern its internal affairs. And, finally, between 1911 and 1950, Tibet was a fully independent state. It is possible to conclude, therefore, that Tibet was an independent state through most, if not all, of its two thousand year history. This historical fact carries great weight in establishing Tibet's independence today.
If Tibetans accept autonomy, they will close the door to independence in the future.

Tsoltim N. Shakabpa. "The case againts autonomy for Tibet". January 14, 2008 - "Communist Chinese for an official agreement to have autonomous status for Tibet, we will be surrendering many of the rights we are now entitled to[...]"and locking ourselves into a constricted and precarious situation forever from which we cannot withdraw."