BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama has no clear foreign policy agenda

There is a perennial Republican attack – that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. Obama has proven that to be untrue settling issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has, however, managed to do it without offending anybody or having his effigy burnt on the streets in Canada and Europe[i]. He has managed to re-forge the supportive attitude of much of the world towards combating terrorism and worked with leaders of other major economies to tackle the economic troubles in the global economy. President Bush was the one always looking for votes with his fake bonhomie and folksy charm for the voters back home. Obama by contrast treats his allies with respect and receives it in return and abundance.[ii] [i] President Obama. "Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity." USA Today. September 08, 2011 [ii] President Obama. "Let's reclaim the post-9/11 unity." USA Today. September 08, 2011
Obama has delivered some remarkable reforms in fantastically difficult circumstances

On matters as diverse as healthcare to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama has pulled a whole series of rabbits out of the apparently impossible hat he inherited from Bush. Among other surprises he took the lead in a G20 summit that produced $1.1tn to act as a bailout fund. He’s effectively resolved the catastrophes in two major conflict zones. He’s ensured that poor families actually stay in their homes. Increased funding for student loans, extended unemployment insurance at a time when 7,000 Americans a week were losing their benefits and, on top of all that he’s introduced a healthcare package that will give security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. All of this has been accomplished in the face of extraordinary difficulties that were not of his making[i]. [i] Athleen Rosell. "Devil's Advocate: Re-Elect Obama." The Daily Titan. April 19th, 2011
After eight years of misrule under Bush, in the middle of an appalling recession expecting everything top get done in four years was always fantasy

Given the size of the challenges facing the Obama administration when he was elected, they were never going to be resolved in four years. Perhaps his largest mistake was not amending his “Yes, we can” slogan with the caveat “but it’s going to take a while.” A debt of $14tn was never just going to vanish like the morning mist, particularly in the depths for a recession caused, in large part, by the Bush administration’s inability to regulate their friends in the banking industry, to start unnecessary wars and to give away tax breaks to the rich. Equally, Obama came into the job at a time when most of the rest of the world was barely on speaking terms with the US and has had to rebuild bridges with all of the traditional allies beyond the ever loyal UK and Israel – although even they were looking edgy by the end of the bush era. Even getting up to the starting line has taken the better part of his first term, it would be folly to hand the country and the economy back to the same people who caused the problem in the first place[i]. [i]  Steven Rattner. "Ron Suskind’s inaccurate revisionism." Politico. October 1, 2011
Given the current state of the Republican field and the gravity of the challenges facing the US, Obama may well be not only the best but the only hope

The Republican Party primary campaign currently resembles a dismembered chicken’s head in frantic search of a body. Palin, Trump, Perry… A string of gaffes followed by a collapse after collapse. [i] Obama at the very least has the capacity to inspire confidence and the experience of four years in office. If, as seems most likely, the Republican candidate ends up being Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, then he would represent a figure who is almost as unpopular in his own party as he is with Democrats. Divided and divisive a Republican victory in 2012 would fragment congress, terrify the markets and worry international opinion. Furthermore, the only policy option they appear to have suggested for dealing with the economic mess is to do nothing except, perhaps, cut taxes some more; thereby increasing the deficit and further angering China. Unless the republicans can come up with a genuine surprise (and the guy they voted against last time really doesn’t fit that bill) then the voters are presented with one very harsh reality: Vote for anybody, as long as it’s Obama[ii]. [i] Dionne, E.J. Jr., “The Rise of the Reverse Houdinis”, 13 October 2011. [ii] E.J. Dionne. “GOP’s Favorite Solution: Doing Nothing”. Real Clear Politics. 13 October 2011.
Obama has singularly failed to resolve Americas economic woes, which was the single largest issue when he was elected

Beyond the rhetoric, beyond the inspirational speeches, there was one issue on voters’ minds when they supported Obama; the economy and jobs. He has simply failed to deliver. He likes to portray himself as the master of public policy; a kind of philosopher king. However the reality couldn’t be further from the truth[i]. On the issue that has dominated international discourse since his election, the economic meltdown, he has simply failed to deliver. He accepted a fiscal stimulus package that contained plenty in the way of pork but little in terms of practicality. He has failed to create jobs, the unemployment rate is still at 9% up from 7.8% when he became President.[ii] And Obama has singularly failed to tackle the deficit, which has increased by $4 trillion since he took office,[iii] apparently seeming more interested in spending on unnecessary projects. [i] Jonah Goldberg. "Where's the evidence Obama's a policy genius?" National Review Online. October 9th, 2011 [ii] Rogers, Simon, ‘US jobless date: how has unemployment changed under Obama?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 7 October 2011. [iii] Knoller, Mark, ‘National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama’, CBS News, 22 August 2011.
Obamacare is neither one thing nor the other; even his flagship policy shows that Obama is always the politician and never the leader that the US needs

Obama managed to steer a bill that everyone disliked through Congress. He angered the Republicans, and lost the support of some democrats in congress, 39 voted against the bill,[i] as well as more than a few Democrat voters, and ended up watering it down enough that his own core supporters failed to show up for congressional elections in 2010.[ii] He is reluctant to show leadership in any area of policy and when he does, as Mitt Romney puts it, acts more as “a politician in chief than a commander in chief”[iii]. From the outset the President has been considerably more about spin than substance, usually trying to pass off his own mistakes as those of someone else. Of course all politicians do this but, usually, they also do something else as well; Obama is a one trick pony. [i] Cannon, Carl M., ‘The 39 House Democrats who Voted Against Their Party’s Health Care Bill’, Politics Daily, 8 November 2009. [ii] Best, Samuel J. Best, ‘Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans’, CBS News, 3 November 2010. [iii]  Mitt Romney. "We need a leader, not a politician." USA Today. June 10th, 2010
Obama has no clear foreign policy agenda

Obama’s foreign policy to date has, frankly been a mess. He has failed to stand up to Iran and has allowed both Russia and China to take advantage of his ‘reset’ policy. He has ignored the growth of hostile powers while showing a similar disregard for America’s Allies. Simply by dint of not being Bush, Obama had the possibility of a huge upsurge in support overseas but he has tended to act more the clown than the statesman at international gatherings, for example insulting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G20 summit in Cannes; responding to French President Sarkozy he said "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day."[i] Once again his desire to be the politician than the leader applies even at events where nobody has the vote.[ii] [iii] [i] FoxNews.com, ‘White House Silent on Conversation With French President Insulting Israeli Prime Minister’, 8 November 2011 [ii] Nile Gardiner. "Barack Obama’s disastrous first 1,000 days." The Telegraph. October 18th, 2011 [iii] "Goldberg: Obama, abroad, is adrift." LA Times. September 6th, 2011
Obama has delivered some remarkable reforms in fantastically difficult circumstances

Nobody denies that Obama talks a good game and that he came into office facing some big problems. However, the reality is that he simply hasn’t stepped up to the plate. The economy is a shambles; unemployment is at over nine percent and only looks to grow, the debt is running at $14tn and the deficit is out of control. His much vaunted healthcare plan is a rehash of Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. His only solution to any problem is to throw money that the government doesn’t have at it[i]. Ultimately, he has proved himself long on rhetoric but very short on delivery. His campaign was based on an idea that he could provide leadership to a nation in trouble. Instead he has rushed after either verbosity or inaction and frequently both[ii]. [i] Karl Rove. "Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012." Wall Street Journal. June 22nd, 2011 [ii] John Feehery. "Opinion: Obama’s fatal missteps." The Hill. October 3rd, 2011
After eight years of misrule under Bush, in the middle of an appalling recession expecting everything top get done in four years was always fantasy

President Bush took a series of extremely difficult decisions that were necessary for national security. Admittedly they were expensive but they made the world a safer place. His decisions on taxation ensured that all Americans benefitted from economic growth. He had already done the heavy lifting all the Obama administration needed to do was allow the market to bring the economy out of recession. Instead he has interfered and regulated while constantly spending money that wasn’t there on policies that weren’t priorities. There’s no denying that the economy was in trouble when Obama got the keys to the West Wing but the job of being president is solving these things, not complaining about them. He wanted the job and has singularly failed to deliver. Instead he has pursued a left-wing, interventionist agenda that believes that government can provide all the answers. Except there is a big problem: he has no experience of running anything. He was a junior Senator in an era where the country tends to turn to former governors to fill the Chief Executive’s jacket; he simply doesn’t know what he’s doing[i]. [i]  Emmett Tyrrell. "Barbour out on the hustings." The American Spectator. March 17th, 2011
Obama has singularly failed to resolve Americas economic woes, which was the single largest issue when he was elected

Obama took the lead in putting together an international solution to the financial crisis. He has taken bold decisions to prevent the crisis turning into a full-blown depression, such as pushing through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which was to give an estimated $787billion stimulus to the economy,[i] and has acted to control the worst excesses of Wall Street through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[ii] He has passed consumer protections legislation relating to credit cards and mortgages and established a framework to double US exports by 2015. He created and Advanced Manufacturing Fund to help the economy away from its addiction to the antics of Wall Street wide boys and return the focus to industries that make something tangible and, in the same spirit, rescued Detroit from its own suicidal tendencies. He has freely conceded that unemployment is too high and is working to address that in the midst of an economic crisis that was not of his making. However, he is delivering public policy solutions in new and imaginative areas as opposed to the tired claims of Republicans that yet another tax cut would be a panacea for all economic ills. [i] Recovery.gov, ‘The Recovery Act’ [ii] The Library of Congress Thomas, ‘H.R.4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’, 111th Congress 2009-2010
The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative

We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone.
Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions

Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service.
It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide

Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed.
Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target

Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death.  Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment.
The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological

 Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide[1].  Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide[2]. This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying.      [1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010 [2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.
The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative

Bullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life[1]. She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying.   [1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/us/09bully.html
Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions

In any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide.
It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide

Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death[1]. She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.   [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...
Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target

According to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in[1]. Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society. [1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22813400/#.Tvmm8iNWoVc
Conduct offence

We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.
Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools

Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account.
The bully's intentions are irrelevant

In criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great[1]. The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life. [1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009.
The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying

Even when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm[1], or invasion of privacy[2]. But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately. [1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/05bully.html [2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times.  September 29. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html
Conduct offence

Defining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying[1]. Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy. [1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005.
Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools

Schools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results[1]. To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care. [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...