BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Isaias Afewerki has sought self-reliance

Eritrea has never been fully self-sustainable and still accepts foreign assistance. The beginning of the 21st century has seen Eritrea open up to increasing numbers of foreign Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing aid. The country has now become a highly favoured aid recipient1. Even during the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, when most aid agencies were forced out of the country, some were permitted to remain. 1) Smith-Simonsen,C. ‘The pros and cons of self-reliance: Eritrea’s relations with aid agencies and NGOs’ pg.347
The US has unfairly supported Ethiopia

The US has attempted to maintain an equal level of support for both Ethiopia and Eritrea since the EEBC incident. Both states became military allies of the USA and joined the coalition of the willing which invaded Iraq in 20031. The US has also attempted to reach a permanent peace between the two state and has encouraged Eritrea to contribute to regional stability2. 1) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005 2) Bureau of African Affairs, ‘U.S. Relations with Eritrea’11 February 2013
Eritrea is surrounded by hostile nations

Eritrea has been responsible for the majority of this animosity. The country was responsible for aggressively attacking Yemen in 1996. In 2008, Eritrea attacked along the Djibouti-Eritrean border claiming the territory was rightfully theirs1. A theme emerges from these examples, confirmed by President Afewerki of Eritrea when he openly stated he has sought the removal of neighbouring regimes2. The excuse of adopting a siege mentality has also enabled the president to increase his powers and suppress internal dissent3. It is therefore more likely that the government, rather than external players, have contributed to Eritrea’s siege mentality.  1) Mesfin,B. ‘The Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute’, 15 September 2008 2) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998 3) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’, 3 October 2013
The UN has done little to facilitate improvement

Eritrea has acted in violation of international law numerous times through methods such as human rights abuse and deserves the UN’s condemnation. Despite these abuses, the UN still offers aid to the country1, demonstrating its commitment to re-engage with the country.  Eritrea, however, has been increasing hostile to the UN over the issue of aid. Having refused assistance from the United Nations World Food Programme and other policies, Eritrea has weakened its links with the institution, isolating itself from the international community.  1) BBC, ‘Eritrea refuses food aid’, 3 January 2010
Eritrea started the 1998 war

Eritrea was responsible for instigating the war against Ethiopia, making it liable for its increased isolation. Eritrea was officially recognised by an international Claims Commission as the initiator of the war1. The state invaded the region of Badme after a long diplomatic dispute over the border issue as they believed the territory was rightfully theirs2. They removed the Ethiopian presence from the state, compromising territorial integrity and incurred a reaction from Ethiopia. This marked Eritrea as the aggressor. An aggressor in a war cannot be seen as a ‘just’ actor and has therefore contributed to its own seclusion by acting in such a manner. 1) BBC, ‘Eritrea broke law in border war’, 21 December 2005 2) Briggs,P. ‘Ethiopia’ pg.30
The government has supported terrorist organisations

Accusations have been made against Eritrea claiming that they have supported terrorist groups, particularly those operating in neighbouring countries. Eritrea has been accused of supporting al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group in Somalia who also operate in Kenya, as well as several other secessionist groups. Training camps have reportedly been established within Eritrea, several of which were attacked by Ethiopia in 20121. The attempts to destabilise East Africa have naturally led to international condemnation, especially from the USA whose “War on Terror” was contradicted by Eritrea’s action2. This would suggest that Eritrea’s own actions are responsible for their isolation.   1) Smith,D. ‘Ethiopian raid on Eritrean bases raises fears of renewed conflict’, 16 March 2012 2) BBC, ‘US sanctions on Eritrea spy chief Negash over al-Shabab’, 6 July 2012
Human Rights Abuse

Eritrean isolation has been exacerbated by their poor human rights record.  Claims were presented to the UN of ‘extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, extended incommunicado detention, torture, indefinite national service, and lack of freedom of expression, assembly, religious belief and movement’1. Eritrea’s President, Isaias Afewerki, has been accused of using the threat of invasion as a justification for the highly militarised and brutal nature of his country2. This has attracted international criticism, with a joint statement from 44 countries condemning Eritrea’s infringement of human rights3. 1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013 2) Blair,D. ‘Eritrea: the African North Korea which thousands will risk anything to escape’ 3 October 2013 3) Joint statement of 44 countries, ‘Human rights Situation in Eritrea’, Human Rights Council, 13 March 2012
President Isaias Afewerki has sought self-reliance

Whilst President Afewerki was fighting for Eritrean independence he became a proponent of the self-reliant state, which could sustain its own population with no external assistance. Since independence the President has rejected foreign aid to the country through claims that aid is a method of enslavement to international donors1. Numerous offers of assistance, including the free food distributions of the World Food Programme, have been rejected in favour of the domestic market2. Afewerki claims that as aid decreases, farmers will work harder to ensure that food demand is met. The lack of donors and trading partners has served to weaken Eritrea’s ties of the outside world, making the state responsible for its own isolation. 1) BBC, ‘Self Reliance could cost Eritrea dear’, 5 July 2006 2) Saunders,E. ‘Eritrea aspires to be self-reliant, rejecting foreign aid’, Los Angeles Times, 2 October 2007
The US has unfairly supported Ethiopia

The US is responsible for Eritrea’s isolation through its foreign policy. The United States has actively supported Ethiopia, Eritrea’s rival, in regional disputes. In 2002, the USA urged Ethiopia to disregard the Eritrean-Ethiopian Border Commission’s (EEBC) decision which stated that lands occupied by Ethiopia did belong to Eritrea. This was also a violation of their role as a guarantor for the agreement1. Continued support for Ethiopia’s counterterrorism role worsened US-Eritrea relations. Relationships deteriorated to the extent of which that the USA attempted to revoke Eritrea’s membership to the UN in December 2011. The US has therefore been unnecessarily provocative and exclusionary in its foreign policy. 1) Weldemichael,A. ‘Eritrea: Bringing Eritrea in From the Cold- We Need to UN-Break the U.S.-Ethiopia-Eritrea Triangle’ 17 January 2014
Eritrea is surrounded by hostile nations

Eritrea has been forced in to isolation due to unfriendly neighbours. In its short history, Eritrea has been in conflicts with Ethiopia and Djibouti over border issues. Diplomatic ties with Sudan, while having improved recently, have historically been very poor as well. The hostility received from these countries has fostered a “bunker mentality” amongst Eritreans1. The previous and present security threats from their neighbours has ensured an ‘us against them’ attitude, which is evident in their wider international dealings. 1) Eshetu,S. ‘Eritrean Leadership’s “Bunker Mentality”’, 3 September 1998
The UN has done little to facilitate improvement

Rather than encouraging Eritrea to become more integrated in the international community, the United Nations has made the state’s situation worse. The UN has enforced sanctions upon the country for links that it claimed to find between Eritrea and al-Shabaab1 which served to weaken ties between Eritrea and the outside world. The intergovernmental organisation (IGO) has also regularly condemned Eritrea for its policies, which Eritrea believes is the result of hostile states ensuring the state is condemned by the international community2. 1) The Guardian, ‘Eritrea’s human rights record comes under fire at United Nations’, 25 October 2013 2) Ibid
Eritrea started the 1998 war

Ethiopia provoked Eritrea into invading their shared border. The lands were technically Eritrean, as the boundaries commission would later state1. Through these circumstances, Eritrea was not infringing the territorial integrity of Ethiopia. Moreover, some have hypothesised that Ethiopia actually encouraged the war to happen by murdering several Eritrean officials near Badme2. This would create an excuse to make territorial gains, namely to regain access to the Red Sea and the potential trade that accompanied it3. 1) Lauterpacht,E. ‘Sixteenth report on the work of the commission’ 24 February 2005 2) Connell,D. ‘Eritrea/Ethiopia War Looms’, 2 October 2005 3) Shah,A. ‘Conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea’, 20 December 2000
The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, so Trump had a prior right to fire him

The President can fire the FBI director for any reason. It is clear there was limited trust between them which will have made running the department difficult and the President can and should act upon advice from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General when making these kinds of decisions. If there was a mistake here it might have been in keeping Comey on as FBI Director following the election when there was such a cloud of controversy over him. [1] President Clinton removed Director William Sessions from his position as FBI director in 1993. [1] ‘Trumps Firing of FBI Director Comey has Huge Implications for Investors’, Forbes, 23 May 2017.
Director Comey was a showboat

In his conduct former Director Comey has demonstrated a preference for media exposure inappropriate for an FBI Director. Back when he was Deputy Attorney General in 2004 he threatened resignation when administration refused to take his advice over its surveillance programme and testified about the incident before the Judiciary committee in 2007. [1] He has consistently failed, both during the Clinton emails investigation and during the Trump Campaign investigation, to exercise the level of discretion with the media expected of someone in his position. We’re seeing this again in his refusal to testify about his firing in a closed session of the Judiciary Committee but insisting on an open committee hearing. [2] The most egregious example was his decision to make public his recommendation to prosecutors on the Clinton emails case, something which has never happened in the history of the FBI. [3] [1] ‘FBI Director James Comey’s must-watch testimony from 2007’, Washington Post, 7th July 2016. [2] ‘Former FBI Director James Comey to testify in Open Session before Senate Intelligence Committee’, The Independent, 20th May [3] ‘James Comey Defends Handling of Clinton Email Investigation’, Wall Street Journal, 3rd May 2017
President Trump was acting on advice of officials

The President indicated that he was acting on the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. In Rosenstein’s three page memo dated the 9th of May he makes a number of sound criticisms of Director Comey’s handling of the Hilary Clinton e-mail scandal: That Director Comey was wrong initially to announce the closure of the investigation, as that was a decision for the Attorney General to have made. That it was inconsistent with established good practice, to hold a press conference open the closure of the case criticising the subject of an investigation as “extremely careless” but that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. And further wrong to announce the reopening of the case in the letter which many have contributed to Hilary Clinton losing. Rosenstein cited several past Attorneys General who also agreed with this assessment. Many prominent Democrats made similar criticisms of Comey’s conduct when he published the letter and called for President Obama to remove him from his position. [1] [1] Rosenstein, R ‘Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI’, 9th May 2017
The decision to fire Comey has eroded trust in the rule of law

The President as a rule should try to avoid firing senior law enforcement officers. The FBI director has a 10 year tenure under the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act for a reason, that the President hiring and firing the director without serious cause serves to make the office more political which means it cannot be trusted to conduct investigations into government officials. Regardless of whether his conduct with the Clinton Email investigation was perfect, the White House should have exercised more caution in dismissing someone who is currently involved in an ongoing investigation into the White House. [1] [1] ‘FBI Director: Appointment and Tensure’, Congressional Research Service, 19 February 2014.
The decision to fire Comey was taken rashly without due consideration for the effects

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the White House acted without sufficient care and attention for the integrity of the institution when making the decision to fire him. Director Comey learned about his dismissal initially from television. [1] The memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was written on the day that Comey was fired and the Trump has himself contradicted the earlier claim that he made the decision to fire him based on the memo in his interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and Rosenstein has revealed in testimony to the Senate that he has instructed to write the memo so the official explanation the Administration attempted to give of the circumstances of the dismissal fell apart within a matter of days. [2] At the same time there would appear to be no clear plan for who will replace Rosenstein as FBI Director, and therefore also no clear plan for what will happen with the FBI Investigation into the Trump Campaign, given that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are compromised by their involvement with Comey’s dismissal. [3] This has effectively damaged the integrity of law enforcement within the United States. [1] ‘James Comey learned about his firing as FBI Director from TV, source says’, Chicago Tribune, 9th May 2017. [2] ‘Trump: Regardless of Recommendation, I was Going to Fire Comey’, The Atlantic, May 11th 2017. [3] ‘Why Sessions is in Deep Trouble’, Washington Post, 2nd March 2017
The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, so Trump had a prior right to fire him

The FBI director is and should be independent from day to day interference with their office. The 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act establishes a 10 year tenure for the position precisely to allow them the kind of space from political interference needed to allow them to conduct their business, which includes the investigation of government officials. [1] The President should have overwhelming reasons to dismiss the director, such as the kind of allegations made against former Director Sessions which prompted his removal. [1] ‘FBI Director: Appointment and Tenure’, Congressional Research Service, 19 February 2014.
Director Comey was a showboat

The 2004 incident concerned the decision of both Comey and his then-boss Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Bush wiretapping programme was illegal. His threat to resign when the administration ignored the issue of legality and passed the law anyway, albeit without the Attorney General’s written assent to it being legal was kept private until a memoir was published in 2007 which is why he was invited before the Senate Judiciary Committee to recount the tale. [1] This isn’t him seeking publicity, but rather him answering a summons. Comey has indicated that his decision to make his recommendation on prosecution public was a response to the public interest in the case and desire to end speculation. An ongoing investigation into a Presidential candidate was also rare in the bureau’s history, it seems reasonable that uncommon practice would occur. [1] ‘FBI Director James Comey’s must-watch testimony from 2007’, Washington Post, 7th July 2016. [2] ‘James Comey Defends Handling of Clinton Email Investigation’, Wall Street Journal, 3rd May 2017
President Trump was acting on advice of officials

Even if all this is correct the time to fire Comey was either when he announced the reopening of the investigation or when Trump assumed office. The fact that President Trump didn’t fire Director Comey then suggests that he was satisfied with his conduct and therefore creates suspicion that the firing wasn’t for the reasons given but to do with the investigation into the interaction between the Trump Campaign team and the Russian government. This is further compounded by the fact that in his May 11th interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt Trump indicated his decision to fire Comey wasn’t based on the recommendation but “I was going to fire, regardless of recommendation” [1] and Rosenstein has revealed to the Senate that he was instructed to write the memo. [2] [1] ‘Trump: Regardless of Recommendation, I was Going to Fire Comey’, The Atlantic, May 11th 2017. [2] ‘Senate Inquiries Narrow as Rosenstein Suggests Plan for Fire Comey Predated Memo’, New York Times May 18th 2017.
The decision to fire Comey has eroded trust in the rule of law

In the long term it is likely more damaging the the office if the person holding it is either not behaving within established precedent of how an FBI Director should behave or if he has a particularly poor relationship with the President. It’s unlikely the President could forge a good working relationship with someone whom his Attorney and Deputy Attorney General have told him isn’t up for the task and who has refused his advice on what his priorities should be. Deputy Attorney Rosenstein’s memo clearly establishes that Comey’s handling of the emails scandal was not in keeping with past bureau practice. [1] Rosenstein, R ‘Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI’, 9th May 2017
The decision to fire Comey was taken rashly without due consideration for the effects

It’s often the case that an Administration will offer an initial explanation for a chain of events and have to clarify it further in response to criticism. In this instance President Trump’s explanation that he fired Director Comey in response to Rosenstein’s memo seems to be more exactly phrased as he invited Rosenstein to clarify the reasons that, given how he had handled the Clinton investigation, Comey should be fired. That doesn’t mean it was improper to fire him. The timing seems to be more than anything to do with Comey’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The President likely read responses to that, asked the Deputy Attorney General to make a recommendation and used that recommendation as the basis for the dismissal. [1] [1] ‘Rosenstein stands by memo on firing James Comey’, Guardian, 19th May 2017
Digital free speech on social networking sites should not be limited.

There are limits to free speech, even when on social media sites. The free speech that this debate refers to is when it becomes offensive. Tom Daley does live in a prosperous western democracy and enjoys the rights of the freedom of speech. However, with digital communication, he is facing unwarranted attention, and harassment. While it is not in person, that does not make it okay to tell someone “I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you in the pool…” just because you said it on Twitter rather than in person does not make it any less threatening or less emotionally distressing. We should be living in a society where we respect individuals, and not be harassing them either online or offline. Tolerance needs be more apparent in our society, it is perfectly fine to have different opinions, as long as we respect others opinions.
Digital free speech on social networking sites should not be limited.

Freedom of speech is a basic right for every human as being able to express ones opinions is an innate part of our humanity. We are sentient beings who form our own opinions and should be able to express those opinions. This should be especially the case in the UK as Free speech is one of the trademarks of a prosperous democracy. Those living in a western democracy expect to have the right to say whatever we feel like no matter whether we are online or offline - without the fear of prosecution. This is an area where countries like the UK regularly criticize other countries states, take China for example Amnesty International reports that the Chinese cannot face prosecution if they accused of communicating with groups abroad, calling for reform and an end to corruption through chat rooms, instance messaging, email, or text messages. Nearly 50 people were detained or arrested during the crackdown of the “Jasmine” protests that were occurring in response to the Arab Spring. [1] Social networks like twitter are an amazing way to exercise our right to freedom of speech yet it is something we choose to take part in. Those networks recognize they are providing a platform for free speech by including in their terms and conditions for example twitter has “You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive.”[2] Those on the site have accepted this. The state should not be getting involved in micromanaging our freedom of speech. Our actions, not our words should be regulated by the states. [1] Amnesty International. “Annual Report: China.” http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2012#section-28-3 [2] Twitter, “Content on the Services”, https://twitter.com/signup
Current legislation is out of date for a digital age

They are not out of date, first of all, the 1988 Malicious Communications Act was updated in 2001.[1] Furthermore, those messages especially in a high volume are very distressing, and cause anxiety to the recipient. Tom Daley is an Olympic athlete and is a relevantly recent public figure- hearing in mass volumes that people thing he is an awful, and that his deceased father would be upset at his performance, would unnerve even the most resilient public person. The purpose of the Act is to protect people from harm and being subjected to emotional distress is harmful.  This is extended to messages that have the intention of causing distress or anxiety- which is exactly what those messages did. It is not about the physical act, but the result for causing distress and anxiety to another citizen. The intention of free speech is not to give the public license to act maliciously towards one another.  The purpose and intention of these two Acts have not changed with the rise of digital mediums of communication. [1] Annotations. Malicious Communications Act 1988. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27