content
stringlengths
10
255
id
stringlengths
20
23
Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics
perspectrum-corpus-900
Moderate, non-partisan politics are promoted by open primaries.
perspectrum-corpus-901
Open primaries are beneficial for the nurturing of moderate, non-partisan politics.
perspectrum-corpus-902
Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership
perspectrum-corpus-903
Earmarks allow the leaders of political parties to be too powerful.
perspectrum-corpus-904
Earmarks give the central leaders of political parties too much leverage.
perspectrum-corpus-905
Earmarks erode trust in the government
perspectrum-corpus-906
Earmarks contribute to a loss of confidence in the government.
perspectrum-corpus-907
Earmarks make people suspicious of the government.
perspectrum-corpus-908
Earmarks circumvent the normal legislative processes and erode confidence in government
perspectrum-corpus-909
McCain's Economic Adviser Says Earmarks Erode Public Trust
perspectrum-corpus-910
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice
perspectrum-corpus-911
Earmarks are against our basic principles of fairness.
perspectrum-corpus-912
Earmarks aren't fair to everyone.
perspectrum-corpus-913
Abolishing earmarks will save money
perspectrum-corpus-914
Getting rid of earmarks will cut down on government waste.
perspectrum-corpus-915
Eliminating earmarks will help save tax dollars.
perspectrum-corpus-916
Should congressional earmarks be abolished?
perspectrum-corpus-917
Debate: Congressional Earmarks
perspectrum-corpus-918
Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch
perspectrum-corpus-919
Without congress to check the executive branch it could run wild.
perspectrum-corpus-920
Congress is one of the checks of the check and balance system that reins in the executive branch.
perspectrum-corpus-921
Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money
perspectrum-corpus-922
Earmarks waste the taxpayer's money.
perspectrum-corpus-923
Earmarks aren't the best way to spend tax dollars.
perspectrum-corpus-924
Earmarks: The end of congressional pork?
perspectrum-corpus-925
Oversight , and Impact of Congressional Earmarks 2
perspectrum-corpus-926
Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss
perspectrum-corpus-927
Congress would be destabilised without earmarks.
perspectrum-corpus-928
A ban on earmarks would negatively affect congress.
perspectrum-corpus-929
Terrorism can bring attention
perspectrum-corpus-930
Terrorism is relative
perspectrum-corpus-931
Terrorism can lead to discussion
perspectrum-corpus-932
The longer a single leader remains in power, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage.
perspectrum-corpus-933
Longer terms for Politicians could lead to unfairness in governing
perspectrum-corpus-934
If a single leader sits on the throne for too long, it's more likely for the leader to exploit his or her power.
perspectrum-corpus-935
The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:
perspectrum-corpus-936
If there's no term limit, the leader will likely exploit his power to personal advantages by staying too long in the office.
perspectrum-corpus-937
the longer someone is in power, the more likely he will use it for personal advantage
perspectrum-corpus-938
as times went one, the more someone is in control of his power, the more likely he will succumb to use such power for personal advantage
perspectrum-corpus-939
By imposing mandatory term limits on politicians, we are saying the citizens are not capable of making good decisions about their elected officials.
perspectrum-corpus-940
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their leaders on their own.
perspectrum-corpus-941
The use of term limits in politics shows a lack of faith in the ability of voters to choose the best candidate for office.
perspectrum-corpus-942
Term limits should be voted on
perspectrum-corpus-943
By having term limits, it makes voters feel that they can't decide on a leader by themselves
perspectrum-corpus-944
With term limits, voters are not seen as intelligent voters
perspectrum-corpus-945
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:
perspectrum-corpus-946
congress needs term limits to ensure different points of views
perspectrum-corpus-947
term limits help with fresh ideas
perspectrum-corpus-948
Term limits allows new blood in the office and prevents one leader from staying in power for too long.
perspectrum-corpus-949
Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish.
perspectrum-corpus-950
term limits allow a balance check and allow for new fresh leaders to take position
perspectrum-corpus-951
it is our best interest to have term limits for diversity
perspectrum-corpus-952
Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:
perspectrum-corpus-953
Having a new leader allow new ideas and thoughts in the office.
perspectrum-corpus-954
The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:
perspectrum-corpus-955
Term limits could lead one to be more dishonest to get the job done quicker
perspectrum-corpus-956
Having term limits on some leaders, puts too much power in the hands of non-limited officials.
perspectrum-corpus-957
When some leaders are subject to term limits and some are not, the balance of power in uneven.
perspectrum-corpus-958
With term limits, there is too much power given to those that aren't leaders
perspectrum-corpus-959
Term limits take too much power away from the leaders that were chosen
perspectrum-corpus-960
A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases.
perspectrum-corpus-961
There are some circumstances when one would want a strong, consistent executive branch of government in place.
perspectrum-corpus-962
There are many instances when having a powerful, unlimited executive branch of government is best.
perspectrum-corpus-963
It may at some point be desirable to keep around a certain executive longer than terms decide
perspectrum-corpus-964
In some instances it may be better to not have term limits if there is a good leader at the time
perspectrum-corpus-965
Freeing the executive from re-election concerns can help focus attention on the public interest
perspectrum-corpus-966
The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office.
perspectrum-corpus-967
By imposing a term limit in office, we can limit the power of executive branch of government.
perspectrum-corpus-968
The power of executive branch of government must be checked by having a term limit for the leader in the office.
perspectrum-corpus-969
there should be a tenancy for the executive branch of government as to keep in check the power of its leaders
perspectrum-corpus-970
the executives brances with no opposing voices to the leaders must be imposed term limits
perspectrum-corpus-971
Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.
perspectrum-corpus-972
Citizens are better protected in federal states.
perspectrum-corpus-973
Federal States often have persistent losers.
perspectrum-corpus-974
Losers abound in federal states.
perspectrum-corpus-975
Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance
perspectrum-corpus-976
Federal United States are better off economically.
perspectrum-corpus-977
Federal governments often extend their powers and usurp local authority, especially if one or more federal units are disproportionately powerful.
perspectrum-corpus-978
Federal states are economically stronger
perspectrum-corpus-979
Having no elections is honest
perspectrum-corpus-980
Not having any elections is honest.
perspectrum-corpus-981
Refraining from elections is honest.
perspectrum-corpus-982
At least no elections would be more honest
perspectrum-corpus-983
Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.
perspectrum-corpus-984
Just because an election is fake does not mean it will not have an impact.
perspectrum-corpus-985
Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections
perspectrum-corpus-986
Doing so would limit the costs and uncertainty that come with others
perspectrum-corpus-987
It would mean there would be less costs spent on uncertainties
perspectrum-corpus-988
Even a sham election demonstrates what the people want
perspectrum-corpus-989
Fake elections are still a demonstration of the peoples desires.
perspectrum-corpus-990
The peoples desires will always be conveyed even in false elections.
perspectrum-corpus-991
Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election
perspectrum-corpus-992
Having elections is beneficial to the end result of democracy.
perspectrum-corpus-993
No elections are in direct contradiction to the desired effect of democracy.
perspectrum-corpus-994
Participation Is Good In Itself
perspectrum-corpus-995
Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty
perspectrum-corpus-996
Participatory Democracy Produces Better Decisions
perspectrum-corpus-997
Participatory Democracy Facilitates the Misrepresentation of Issues
perspectrum-corpus-998
We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not
perspectrum-corpus-999