BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth

The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office. These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i] [i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html
Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism

A free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work[i]. [i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.
“After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”

The Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%,[i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed. [i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment
Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.

The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults. In terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s. It’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them[i]. [i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.
Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration[i]. Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector. [i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.
Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.

It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect. It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.
Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash

The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem. What is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of. There is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures. As Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.
Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth

George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer  system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that[i]. [i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.
Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism

The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered. Free markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy. In a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.
“After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”

The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.
Proportionality

The goal of the war should be proportional to the offense, and the benefits proportional to the costs. For example, when an attacker violates a nation’s border, a proportionate response might extend to restoring the border, not sacking the attackers’ capital. A war must prevent more suffering than it causes. The Coalition that formed under the aegis of the United Nations to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait fought a proportional conflict to the extent that they did not march on Baghdad after they had pushed the Iraqi Army out of the occupied territory.
War is always unjust

The formulation of the just war doctrine, a moral framework for the institution of war, inadvertently serves to legitimise its activities and inherent barbarity. It undermines the intuitive norm against warfare by emphasizing the ‘just’ and undercutting the ‘war’, leading to a framing of public discourse whereby anti-war campaigners can be presented and ostracized as traitors and soldiers, even of aggressor nations, heroes. In many religions war can never be legitimised for example in Buddhism “War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or “just.” One naturally defends oneself when attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, however, justify harming the alleged or imagined perpetrator/aggressor.”[1] [1] Bhikkhu, S. (2003, March). "Just War" is an oxymoron. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from Liberation Park: http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/just-war-oxy.htm
Just war doctrine is an anachronism

The ‘Global War on Terror’, according to the Bush administration and its legal team, ushered in a new ‘paradigm’ of warfare.[1] Characterised by non-state actors, acting across international borders, often from failed states, just war theory is arguably out of its depth in dealing with it. The United States’ war in Afghanistan was not proportional, had little prospect of success in eradicating the ideology of Al-Qaeda itself and certainly was not a last resort, but nevertheless many felt it was ‘just’ in 2001. [1] Lukach, T. (2005, March 17). War on Terror creates New Paradigm for Guard, Reserve. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from U.S. Department of Defense: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31175
Right Intention

Reality is a lot murkier than theory. How are we to determine a state’s intent? Sometimes good intentions are bound up with bad; public justifications for war may not always represent the real reasons. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. Furthermore, it is altogether possible to fight a war for selfish motives and nevertheless protect civilians and reduce suffering in so doing.
Last Resort

Sometimes going to war before all alternatives are exhausted is the most moral action. For example, a nation might decide to go to war if it determines that waiting would enable to the enemy to increase its strength and to do much more damage than an early war would have inflicted. This, after all, is the bitter lesson of the failure of appeasement in the 1930s. Waiting might allow an invading state to entrench itself so that far greater force would be necessary to remove it at a later date.
Prospect of Success

Sometimes it is morally imperative to fight against overwhelming odds, as resistance fighters did in World War II. Also this condition may give large nations free rein to bully small ones because they could not win a war. It also may cause a country to surrender in a war it might actually win. Weak countries have won wars against powerful ones – look at the American Revolution. Finally, the point at which a war became unwinnable, and therefore unjust by this definition, is often only identifiable with hindsight – consider the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the American involvement in Vietnam.
The just war doctrine encourages resort to war

War has always been an option in international affairs; few rulers before just war theory was developed felt constrained by the absence of such a moral framework. What the just war criterion provide for is a regulatory framework whereby war cannot break out before at least one side satisfies the criterion. As such, this ensures a temporal space for diplomatic negotiations to play out and if necessary, for either top-down pressure from more powerful states or bottom-up pressure from the public to alleviate any desire for war.
The just war doctrine encourages resort to war

The just war doctrine establishes a framework for leaders to justify the resort to force in any given situation whereby they can find ostensible evidence for all the necessary criteria. It, in other words, leaves war on the table constantly as an option; diplomatic negotiations and bargaining must succeed with the constant shadow of war looming as not only a realistic eventuality, but an eventuality that could potentially be deemed ‘just’ by either side. Any such doctrine therefore renders the resort to war as far too permissive, and encourages the false presumptions of aggressive states that their motives are not only self-serving but legitimate.
Proportionality

We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run.
War is always unjust

War is a necessary element in international affairs when there is no scope for diplomacy and conditions dictate that force is necessary to prevent or stop suffering. Few would argue that the United States was acting unjustly in entering the 2nd World War, or that more generally the defeat of the Nazis was an unjust act on the behalf of the Allies.   Furthermore, just war theory has little to say on the overall existence of war, but merely seeks to regulate war as a permanent feature of international society. War, as an institution and a human activity, has existed for as long as there have been political communities. The resort to force is therefore not one made due merely to a belief in its legitimacy but a belief in its utility. Just war theory acts therefore as a series of moral criteria to regulate the resort to warfare in order to prevent, rather than exacerbate, war for war’s sake. It recognizes the ‘war is hell’ mentality and is, if anything, born from it, encouraging a resort to force only in cases where diplomacy is unable to function and war is strictly necessary. Even then, jus in bello principles apply to regulate the conflict itself, ensuring that a just war does not descend into the use of illegitimate means and methods of warfare. It does not purport to comment on the matter of the existence of warfare, merely recognises its occurrence and seeks to regulate both its regularity and bloodshed.
Just war doctrine is an anachronism

The traditional just war framework may be difficult to apply to the contemporary war on terror, but whilst war remains, we must possess the just war framework as a strategic tool to both prevent and regulate its occurrence. Whilst they may involve the alteration of certain criteria, as has happened throughout its history, it does not suggest it has lost all use. The Bush administration’s attempts to circumvent the jus in bello principles of non-combatant immunity were stalled, albeit belatedly, by widespread public disapproval, proving the basis for just war thinking is not in vain idealism but moral intuition. Therefore the just war doctrine is not only necessary but to an extent, innate.
Just Cause

Wars are just if the cause is just. Nations should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression, just as individuals are permitted to defend themselves against violence. In the UN Charter, signed in the wake of World War II, article 2, paragraph 4 altogether prohibits the use or threat of force with only self-defence, as stated in article 51, permitted as a justification to the resort to arms.[1] [1] United Nations. (1945, June 26). Chapter I: Purposes and Principles. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from Charter of the United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml
A EU constitution will foster a “European identity”

Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.
The ECJ has often been accused of over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties.[1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe. [1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1, http://www.eulaw.soton.ac.uk/elpub/SWPEL3_Roberts.pdf
There already are constitutional documents

We already have such constitutional documents – the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and most importantly the Lisbon treaty from very recently (2009). The powers of, and relationships between the different institutional actors are clearly defined in the existing treaties. Just because the EU has expanded to incorporate new member states does not mean it needs a constitution. The Treaty of Nice was meant to have made the necessary amendments to facilitate enlargement. If it has failed, then we can simply amend the existing treaties again.
Adopting a European Constitution and failing to abide by it would be a big and challenging failure

The European Union should be wary of adopting a European Constitution as many states may not be able to abide by its terms. The reason why Greece is in so much financial trouble is its unwillingness to abide by the European Growth and Stability Pact, however others, Germany and France had already broken the pact.[1] Such a failure to abide by the rules with a constitution, something which is meant to be at the heart of the state, would greatly damage European credibility and would practically rule out the possibility of more comprehensive change in the future. Accession countries have shown little interest in the Constitutional Treaty overall, given a series of other more immediate concerns. Therefore a constitution is unneeded in order for the EU to develop, enlarge or prosper. It can only lose if it created a constitution which turned out a disaster. [1] Aznar, José María, ‘Europe must reset the clock on stability and growth’, FT.com, 16 May 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e07c4f0-6115-11df-9bf0-00144feab49a.html#axzz...
A EU Constitution will lead to a superstate, which is undesirable at the moment

A European constitution is a first step on a slippery slope towards a United States of Europe. Such a European superstate is widely opposed by citizens of all EU members, not least because it would be undemocratic, unaccountable and remote. Many EU citizens already believe this is the case. In Britain polls regularly show that far from wanting deeper integration the country is in favour of leaving the EU.[1]  As has already been shown members do not consider themselves ‘European’ nearly as much as they do their own national identity. [2] [1] The Democracy Movement Surrey, ‘The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.’ 2007 http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/canweleave.html [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_Europe...
A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must

While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.[1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.”[2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures. [1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011 http://www.euinside.eu/en/analyses/is-the-eu-ready-for-a-new-treaty [2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011, http://rt.com/politics/norway-extremism-russia-multiculturalism/
The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated

It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu .[1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also [1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’ http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/index_en.htm