instruction
stringclasses 21
values | input
stringlengths 35
47.2k
| output
stringlengths 2
23.6k
|
|---|---|---|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | I believe that higher taxes within reason, not like 100 , more like 33 66 average rate is better than lower taxes 0 33 average . The reason why I believe this is because tax dollars are spent directly back into the economy in the form of millions of government employees and purchases, and overwhelmingly go to funding systems like education, healthcare, military, transportation, infrastructure, etc. The higher the taxes, but still leaving a lot of financial wiggle room for personal freedom, the better a society and economy is, as money is spent as it is received, rather than having a chance to be spent, and much of it just sitting in bank accounts, trusts, etc. I believe that higher taxes has overwhelmingly more pros than cons, given that it's a rate of spending or income, etc, rather than a flat fee. Am I wrong? Edit One of my views I am not so sure of anymore, thanks to some input that higher taxes is better for the economy than lower taxes. I'll say that maybe I am misguided by using a blanket statement like that, but I am still standing by my belief that higher taxes can support better uses of the spending on the economy, such as healthcare and education. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing | Higher taxes is better than lower taxes. |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Bonnie Greer : When did you start to hate her?
Proposition: xxx is when the press started to hate Meghan | Assertive Questioning |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition
Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10)
In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10)
Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9)
This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1)
The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8)
The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10)
This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10)
Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(10)
Candidate 1: "Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11)
The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)"
Candidate 2: "Tourists will visit Spain and other bullfighting countries regardless of whether or not bullfighting exists, and as people become more ethically aware and act accordingly while on holiday, tourist attendance at the shows looks set to fall even further. Indeed, a poll commissioned in April 2007 found that 89% of the British public would not visit a bullfight when on a holiday.(11)(3) Therefore the loss of tourist income will be minimal, as bullfighting does not even appeal to most tourists.
Those profits which do ensue from bullfighting generally end up in the hands of a small bullfighting elite, not the general population. Moreover, almost everywhere bullfighting requires significant government subsidies to function. The subsidies that prop up this declining industry take money away from serious social problems such as access to public health, education, infrastructures, the elderly, public safety, social housing and environmental policies.(11)"
Candidate 3: "There is nothing noble or poetic about the death of a bull in a bullring. The bulls in a standard bullfight are drugged and confused animals, debilitated and run in circles by others who stab them with spears before the matador approaches to make the "kill shot" with his sword. Anyone who believes this fight to be fair is mistaken. By the time a matador approaches to actually kill the bull, the animal typically has enough spears in his neck and back muscles to prevent him from fully lifting his head.(7)
By contrast, most nations have laws regulating slaughterhouses to ensure that animals killed for meat endure as little pain as possible. The animal is unaware of 'dignity' or 'poetry', but rather only knows its suffering, and consequently this all that the state should take into consideration, with the logical conclusion being to ban bullfighting to protect the animal."
| Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11)
The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | As the title is saying, a friend of mine has worked all his life in marketing and now at 26 he wants to go back to university and start studying petroleum engineering, which will take him 5 6 years until he has gotten his masters. His long term girlfriend is treaten to break up with him and he will go back to living of the income of a poor student until his 30s and if he fails he will have thrown away a very good position in his old company. I think he should stick to his career and not go into a field he has no experience in while he is already over the prime of his intellectual capabilities 25 . . For the sake of fariness it should be mentioned that I am from Germany were you don't have to pay any fees for university and are supported with about 700 € for being a student so debt or a reliable income while studying wont be a problem. Edit Just to be perfectly clear, I am not going to stop supporting him because of hiis decisions. I just think they are very stupid and I am interested in arguments to the contrary. | A friend of mine wants to go back to university to study petroleum engineering at the age of 26 after having worked all his life in marketing. I think its stupid. |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | with executive compensation a person is more likely to risk the viability of the company for short term gains, thereby hurting people at the bottom | 0.865487773 |
Given the following essay as context, and a list of argumentative components extracted from the essay. Label each argumentative component as "major claim", "claim", or "premise". | Essay: Amount of control on media information
Nowadays, one of the most controversial issues related to mass media is the correct amount of control posed on newspapers, televisions and websites. It is argued that the government should exercise less restriction on sharing of media information to public. However, I strongly believe that it should increase the level of control to protect the public against inappropriate contents and unsuitable foreign cultures.
One of the strong arguments in favour of tighter media control is to limit the violent and sexual content. They have a serious impact on people in their puberty. For example, an internet cartoon comedy called happy tree is extremely brutal, where the characters usually have their heads or limbs tear off. Another supporting reason is that television companies import foreign programmes from time to time and audiences might accept their ideas which maybe otherwise not welcomed to local culture. A few years ago there was a Japanese game show which involved throwing cream cakes to the loser. This is actually very environmentally unfriendly.
The major opposing argument is to protect the safety of citizens. In other words, the government should disclose the information to the media in a timely manner, especially for disasters and outbreak of new diseases. Taking the SARS in 2003 as an example, the Chinese government limited the amount of information for public access which therefore causes numerous deaths. Even so, another perspective on this is to prevent the citizen from unnecessary fear and unrest.
Both sides of the arguments have its merits. My personal view is that despite the emphasis of citizen safety, the government should regulate the correct amount of violent and sexual content and censor the culturally unsuitable information. Setting up a council to monitor the media information to the public could be a practical idea.
Argumentative components: the government should regulate the correct amount of violent and sexual content and censor the culturally unsuitable information
it should increase the level of control to protect the public against inappropriate contents and unsuitable foreign cultures
One of the strong arguments in favour of tighter media control is to limit the violent and sexual content
They have a serious impact on people in their puberty
an internet cartoon comedy called happy tree is extremely brutal, where the characters usually have their heads or limbs tear off
television companies import foreign programmes from time to time and audiences might accept their ideas which maybe otherwise not welcomed to local culture
A few years ago there was a Japanese game show which involved throwing cream cakes to the loser
This is actually very environmentally unfriendly
the government should disclose the information to the media in a timely manner, especially for disasters and outbreak of new diseases
Taking the SARS in 2003 as an example, the Chinese government limited the amount of information for public access which therefore causes numerous deaths
another perspective on this is to prevent the citizen from unnecessary fear and unrest | Major claims:
the government should regulate the correct amount of violent and sexual content and censor the culturally unsuitable information
it should increase the level of control to protect the public against inappropriate contents and unsuitable foreign cultures
Claims:
the government should regulate the correct amount of violent and sexual content and censor the culturally unsuitable information
it should increase the level of control to protect the public against inappropriate contents and unsuitable foreign cultures
One of the strong arguments in favour of tighter media control is to limit the violent and sexual content
television companies import foreign programmes from time to time and audiences might accept their ideas which maybe otherwise not welcomed to local culture
the government should disclose the information to the media in a timely manner, especially for disasters and outbreak of new diseases
Premises:
They have a serious impact on people in their puberty
an internet cartoon comedy called happy tree is extremely brutal, where the characters usually have their heads or limbs tear off
A few years ago there was a Japanese game show which involved throwing cream cakes to the loser
This is actually very environmentally unfriendly
Taking the SARS in 2003 as an example, the Chinese government limited the amount of information for public access which therefore causes numerous deaths
another perspective on this is to prevent the citizen from unnecessary fear and unrest |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics
It would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.
This is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.
Candidate 1: "Chess is highly popular and should be represented
Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.
Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.
[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html"
Candidate 2: "Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values."
Candidate 3: "It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline."
Candidate 4: "Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport
Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.
More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.
[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml"
Candidate 5: "Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games
When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.
[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html
[7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games
[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html"
Candidate 6: "All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.
Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.
[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/"
Candidate 7: "The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.
Furthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection."
Candidate 8: "Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good
The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.
Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.
[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm
[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf"
| All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.
Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.
[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/
|
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: Was unlikely ever to happen anyway
At any rate, a prosecution was unlikely. In addition to the general support for Israel amongst the permanent members of the UN Security Council such as the United States – the US would have been likely to use its veto power to stop any International Criminal Tribunal for Israel-Palestine. Also, many of these actions were before the renaissance of international criminal law in the early 1990s following the creation of the ICTY and ICTR by UN Security Council resolutions.
Candidate 1: "The occupation of the West Bank still continued, including the construction of settlements.
The general role of individuals in the peace negotiations is beside the point: individuals who commit atrocities should be responsible for them."
Candidate 2: "If both parties are sincere negotiators – which is doubtful at best – the prospect of prosecutions may focus the mind on preventing further atrocities, de-escalating the situation entirely."
Candidate 3: "Good: impunity is a bad thing. Those who break those norms of international law , and commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted - on all sides. Actions by Hamas and other organizations that are reprehensible are matters that should be brought before impartial courts, too.
While there is no international international definition of terrorism, there are a number of acts which are prohibited by particular treaties – they can be prosecuted too."
Candidate 4: "Just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted.
Israel itself was no stranger to war crimes trials between Nuremberg and the ICTY: Adolf Eichmann, the logistical architect of the Holocaust, was tried and put to death by an Israeli court in 1962.
Sharon has been accused of things after the creation of the ICTY came in to force, such as deaths as a result of Israeli operations in Jenin in 2002 [1] .
[1] Human Rights Watch, ‘Jenin’, 2 May 2002, http://www.hrw.org/node/79081/section/3"
| Just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted.
Israel itself was no stranger to war crimes trials between Nuremberg and the ICTY: Adolf Eichmann, the logistical architect of the Holocaust, was tried and put to death by an Israeli court in 1962.
Sharon has been accused of things after the creation of the ICTY came in to force, such as deaths as a result of Israeli operations in Jenin in 2002 [1] .
[1] Human Rights Watch, ‘Jenin’, 2 May 2002, http://www.hrw.org/node/79081/section/3
|
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | homeopathy can be helpful to alleviate & ease many ailments at a fraction of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs | 1.0 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: Yet according to PP themselves, they provide FAR more abortions and EC services than any of their other services. :P\nPPFA Services (2002-2003)\nSurgical abortions: 227,385 \nEmergency contraception: 633,756 \nPrenatal care: 15,860 \nAdoption referrals: 1,963 \n(Source: www.plannedparenthood.org)
Response: You left out a couple of things, though, which makes your post less reliable. But so nobody gets confused or deceived, here is more accurate statistics:\nhttp://www.plannedparenthood.org/lib...2Services.html\n----\nService No. of Procedures Referrals \nReversible Contraceptive Clients \xe2\x80\x94 Women 2,208,483 \nEmergency Contraception Clients 633,756 \nTubal Sterilization Clients 680\nReversible Contraceptive Clients \xe2\x80\x94 Men 60,476 \nVasectomy Clients 2,522\nAbortion Procedures 227,375 \nHIV Testing Clients \xe2\x80\x94 Women 126,477 \nHIV Testing Clients \xe2\x80\x94 Men 48,991 \nPrenatal Clients 15,860 \nInfertility Clients 325 \nColposcopy Procedures 31,248 \nCryotherapy Procedures 3,913 \nLOOP/LEEP Procedures 1,781 \nMidlife Clients 10,575 \nPregnancy Tests 1,081,772 \nBreast Exams/Breast Care 1,062,727\nAdoption (Referred Out) 1,963 \nPrimary Care Clients 24,483 \nSTI Procedures, Women and Men 1,255,036 \nOther Services \xe2\x80\x94 Women 58,626 \nOther Services \xe2\x80\x94 Men 17,905 \nTotals 6,873,011\nTotal Unduplicated Clients 2,744,554 \n-\nIn 2002, more than 1,500 affiliate staff and volunteer educators provided nearly 101,000 educational programs to more than 1.4 million people of all ages and in a variety of settings \n-\nmore than 6,500 training programs were provided by 117 affiliate staff and volunteers to more than 66,000 professionals who work with children, teens, and young adults\n-\nIn 2002, plannedparenthood.org logged more than 720,000 visits per month and teenwire\xc2\xae.com received approximately 400,000 visits per month and replied to more than 500 personal inquiries a week. PPFA also produced and distributed more than two million consumer health pamphlets. The Katharine Dexter McCormick Library responded to more than 3,000 research and information requests from researchers, sexual health professionals, and the general public\n----\nSo your claim about their abortions being more in number than their other services, well that just turned out to not be true. | 3.0 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Farmland, housing and industry or saving land for animals?
Nowadays, there is a prevailing opinion that human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. People who disagree with the point dispute that the decreasing of land for endangered animals will bring damage to ecological balance. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the opinion human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important. The reasons are based on the following aspects.
First, land used for farmland, housing and industry can benefit more to the whole society. There is no deny that the economy of the whole society will be developed with the help of agriculture, real estate industry and industry, in particularly industry which is the pillar industry of national economy, because they produce plenty of profits. What is more, the society will be stable and harmony due to more farmland and industry. It is widely acknowledged that more farmlands and industries can provide more job opportunities which can decrease the unemployment rate and crime rate. Thus the needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important.
Second, farmland, housing and industry can satisfy the desire of human that living a better life. It is clearly understood that farming, housing and industry provide us the food we eat, place we live, clothes we wear, which are essential to live. Especially in some poor areas, survival is the most significant thing. In addition, highly developed agriculture and industry can improve our living conditions which allow us have a good quality life.
Last I want to mention is that even though farmland, housing and industry will occupy the land used for endangered animals, it can do good to protect the endangered animals. According to the discuss above, agriculture and industry make a contribution to the economy. With the economy development, we can have more advanced methods to take care of endangered animals. For instant, we can invent new technique to help endangered animals to produce offspring to be sure they would not distinct.
All in all, protecting endangered animals is necessary, nevertheless, human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important. | human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important
protecting endangered animals is necessary
human needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important
land used for farmland, housing and industry can benefit more to the whole society
the economy of the whole society will be developed with the help of agriculture, real estate industry and industry, in particularly industry which is the pillar industry of national economy
they produce plenty of profits
the society will be stable and harmony due to more farmland and industry
more farmlands and industries can provide more job opportunities which can decrease the unemployment rate and crime rate
the needs for farmland, housing and industry are more important
farmland, housing and industry can satisfy the desire of human that living a better life
farming, housing and industry provide us the food we eat, place we live, clothes we wear, which are essential to live
Especially in some poor areas, survival is the most significant thing
highly developed agriculture and industry can improve our living conditions which allow us have a good quality life
it can do good to protect the endangered animals
farmland, housing and industry will occupy the land used for endangered animals
agriculture and industry make a contribution to the economy
we can have more advanced methods to take care of endangered animals
we can invent new technique to help endangered animals to produce offspring to be sure they would not distinct |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Why use the form of a prayer and mention the Virgin in a political protest?
The members of Pussy Riot themselves seem to admit that the protest was at least in part religious, Sparrow, one of the members told the Guardian "It was just a prayer. A very special prayer”. [i] When combined with the setting in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour shows the intent. It would, in theory, be possible to imagine a protest in such a setting that did not cause offence – or at least sought to minimise it. However, the religious overtones and references seem designed purely to inflame it. They served no purpose in making the case about Putin’s policies but seem calculated to offend the congregation and clergy and, given the setting, the Orthodox Church as a whole.
However, a quiet and dignified protest, while making the political point more powerfully and without offence would not have served the main purpose here; publicity through maximizing offence as a result of deliberate blasphemy.
To intend blasphemy, to commit blasphemy, in the full and wilful knowledge that it is blasphemous and then claim it is political dissent is offensive not only to the religious but to those who have genuinely suffered as a result of their political dissent [ii] .
[i] Cadwalladr, Carole, ‘Pussy Riot: will Vladimir Putin regret taking on Russia's cool women punks?’, The Observer, 29 July 2012
[ii] Daily Mail. Mark Dooley. “Am I the only person who thinks that pussy riot should have been jailed?” 24 August 2012.
Candidate 1: "History of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state
The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism. [i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.
The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned. [ii] The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts.
[i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003
[ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008"
Candidate 2: "Their song may have gone on to discuss political themes but its basis was an appeal to Mary to rid Russia of Putin. All the rest was trappings after that initial statement – a sort of protracted “because”. It is quite routine for prayers to start with an appeal to diving authority before addressing secular themes just as this did; it was a mockery of a prayer and, therefore, profane."
Candidate 3: "Intention
Perhaps more damning than the fact that the protest did cause offence or the fact that it was always likely to was the fact that it was clearly intended to do. At no point can the members of Pussy Riot been under the illusion that no offence would be caused; quite the reverse, they were counting on it. Counting not only on the outcry in the domestic media but also on the impact that would have on the international media in an effort to give themselves some cover.
While the charge of ‘hooliganism’ might seem laughable this does meet the Russian definition “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.” [i] It is clear they did this in terms of their intrusion to areas reserved for priests, by manifestly contradicting common church rules, expressing their disrespect and using swear words, [ii] it is clear that profanity is a much greater offence within a church than outside even if it is a word used in ‘everyday speech’. [iii]
It is important to be clear that this is not Solzhenitsyn, because of the way this was staged it was intended from the outset to do nothing more than grab headlines. There is no denying that there are real political divisions in Moscow and that there are many people with very real issues with Putin’s style of leadership, it is difficult to see how this publicity grabbing stunt does anything to help that cause.
[i] Taylor, Adam, ‘Why Russian Punks Pussy Riot Aren't Heroes’, Business Insider, 16 August 2012
[ii] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012
[iii] Fraser, Giles, ‘Pussy Riot's crime was violating the sacred. That's what got Jesus in court’, The Guardian, 10 August 2010"
Candidate 4: "The protest was certainly intended to be noticed – there’s little point in protesting something if it isn’t. The very fact that they were willing to risk imprisonment suggests that this was something more than a media stunt. It’s also difficult to see how this is different from earlier generations of artists who have protested tyranny – the only significant difference seems to be that this tyrant gets on rather better with leaders of the West."
Candidate 5: "It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press. [i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel.
[i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012"
Candidate 6: "If it was a purely political statement, then why stage it in a church?
There is no shortage of possible venues to stage a protest such as this one. A busy supermarket, a train station, a park, the middle of the street – all of them would have fulfilled the requirement for lots of people with attentions to be attracted. Since it was dubbed not a live concert the location would have been totally interchangeable. [i] Holding it in a church – in front of the high alter during mass – was calculated to cause maximum effect, maximum shock and maximum publicity. Causing intended offence during a religious ceremony is about as close to the definition of blasphemy as it would be possible to get.
Vladimir Putin has shrugged off challenges from much more serious critics than an attention-seeking group of musicians. This very act was calculated to cause the greatest possible offence to people of faith. Such a protest in St Peter’s in the same situation would have caused great offence even if the protest had been about Berlusconi. When British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter service some years ago, he was widely thought of as having done his cause more harm than good because it offended so many and was subsequently convicted [ii] . This is no different, it was blasphemous and, under Russian law, there are punishments for blasphemy.
[i] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012
[ii] BBC News Website. Tatchell fined £18.60 for pulpit protest."
Candidate 7: "What is extraordinary is that despite the liberal outrage of much of the Western press, the Russian court system has delivered an appropriate verdict. There can be little doubt that their actions showed a fantastic level of disrespect for the Church, this is the closest relevant charge. Rulings may be convenient or not for leaders of all political persuasions – neither proves bias within the courts."
Candidate 8: "Firstly protesting in a Church clearly has served to draw maximum attention to the issue and so they appear to have been proven right to have done so. Secondly, it is the severity of the sentence that is the issue here, Tatchell’s actions were described by the magistrate as “a minor public order offence” and he was given a fine of under £20."
Candidate 9: "The focus of their song was one of political dissent rather than religion
Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out. [i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion.
The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church.
Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists.
[i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012"
Candidate 10: "The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin
There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism [i] , uses force to crush unsanctioned protests, [ii] and locks up potential opponents. [iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law." [iv]
Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process. [v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.
[i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012
[ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012
[iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010
[iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012
[v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012"
Candidate 11: "It’s a parody of a prayer; nobody has ever denied that. If that’s the form of protest to be used, where better than a church? No property was damaged although some feathers may have been ruffled – but fair enough. Protesting the increasingly totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most powerful nations would seem to justify a fairly minor disturbance on a Sunday morning."
| It’s a parody of a prayer; nobody has ever denied that. If that’s the form of protest to be used, where better than a church? No property was damaged although some feathers may have been ruffled – but fair enough. Protesting the increasingly totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most powerful nations would seem to justify a fairly minor disturbance on a Sunday morning.
|
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
In this article, the authors Perraudeau, Risso, Street, Purdom and Dudoit present a nice workflow for normalization, dimensionality reduction, clustering, and lineage inference of single-cell RNA-seq data (scRNA-seq) using R packages from the open-source Bioconductor project.
I enthusiastically agree with the authors on an “increasing need for workflows that integrate these tools to yield a seamless scRNA-seq data analysis pipeline” and this workflow is a great step in the right direction.
However, I have some constructive suggestions that will better integrate other previously developed work and improve this workflow.
- In this workflow, the authors start with a count table.
However, the majority of researchers will start with raw reads (e.g. a FASTQ file).
It would be great if the author discussed current best practices for the quantification step of scRNA-seq data.
Alternatively, the authors could point to other references that have already been developed.
- I would like to see the authors take advantage of the rich functionality and data exploration tools for cell- and gene-specific quality control (QC) introduced in low-level analysis workflows such as the one from Lun et al. (2016) 1 .
Also, in this workflow, the authors create multiple SummarizedExperiment objects (e.g. one with only the top 1000 highly variable genes (HVGs), one with all genes, etc).
This doesn’t seem efficient, especially with large single cell data sets such as the 1.3 million cells from embryonic mouse brains.
I think both of these concerns can now be addressed with efforts such as the recently developed SingleCellExperiment Bioconductor object ( https://github.com/drisso/SingleCellExperiment ).
For example, the authors could add a “USE” column in the gene- or cell-specific meta table to represent whether or not a particular gene in a particular cell met the filtering criteria applied.
The authors could store W in the reduceDim assay of the SingleCellExperiment object.
- In ZINB-WaVE, the authors specify the number of dimensions for the low-dimensional space (K) to be K=50.
Could the authors add more details for the reader explaining why they picked K=50 and describe situations in which a user would want to specify a higher or lower K?
In particular, it would be useful to discuss computational time in terms of number of genes and cells.
Also, it would be useful to note that if you only wanted to use ZINB-WaVE to remove known covariates for normalization, you can use K=0.
Minor comments:
- When selecting the top 1000 HVGs, why do the authors not take into account the overall mean-variance relationship and only select genes based on the variance?
- It would be great if the authors referenced other tools available for similar analyses currently available.
For example there are several available packages for normalization of scRNA-seq data, such as calculating global scaling factors can be done with scran ( https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/scran.html ) or gene and cell-specific scaling factors using SCnorm ( https://github.com/rhondabacher/SCnorm ).
Alternatively, users might want to try using relative transcript counts using Census ( https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/monocle.html ). | Structure
Strength
Strength
Other
Recap
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Other
Todo
Todo
Recap
Todo
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Other
Other |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
This article demonstrates that a HIFU induced RUF can be successsfully closed with a buccal graft and gracilis muscle flap.
I agree with the authors that this technique is the preferred way to treat these RUF.
The article contends this is the first case demonstrating this in the literature.
In fact, we published this first in 2010, in which 2 patients of our cohort had HIFU RUF that were successfully repaired with this technique.
This report should be changed to appropriately acknowledge that we (Vanni et al ) were the first to demonstrate closure of HIFU RUF with this technique with the appropriate reference cited.
Here is this reference:
Vanni AJ 1 , Buckley JC , Zinman LN . Management of surgical and radiation induced rectourethral fistulas with an interposition muscle flap and selective buccal mucosal onlay graft. J Urol. 2010 Dec;184(6):2400-4.
- Another point:
In the discussion the authors state:
"Zinman 9 described 68 patients with rectourethral fistula who underwent gracilis muscle flap repair out of which 27 were performed in combination with BMG".
This reference is antiquated and we have published 2 more extensive papers on the topic more recently that should be cited instead of the one used by the authors.
Vanni et al is a better reference for this sentence and the one I previously mentioned above.
In this paper, 74 patients had RUF repair with a gracilis muscle flap.
39 of these patients had a RUF from an ablative source (radiation and 2 HIFU).
Of these 39 patients, 34 had a buccal mucosa graft (including the 2 HIFU cases) used to close the urethral defect.
37 of these patients had at least 1 gracilis muscle flap, while the other 2 patients had an inferior gluteus maximus flap and a Singapore fasciocutaneous flap. | Structure
Recap
Strength
Recap
Other
Todo
Structure
Other
Structure
Structure
Recap
Todo
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Society should ban all forms of the advertising
It is no secret that advertising become inseparable part of our modern life. We come across with ads almost everywhere and everyday. Some people argue that companies by advertising their goods or services spend their money for nothing. Other critics say that ads have no purpose, they only cause damages to society and all forms of advertising should be banned. On my part I would like to solve this issue on a different way. Society does need an advertising but it is our responsibility to control the content and what kind of goods and services we would like to offer to our customers.
First of all, I do support the idea that advertising alcohol, cigarettes, goods and services with adult content should be prohibited because these kind of ads will have negative effect to our children. Youngsters might be tempted to buy cigarettes or alcohol and later to start consume it on a daily basis. Fortunately, some countries take this issue seriously and advertising alcohol, cigarettes and materials with adult content is banned on those countries.
On the other hand by advertising companies, businesses, firms and individuals promote their goods and services. Thanks to ads we learn about new products, we can compare them and choose what’s the best for us.
These days, not only many businesses, but also governments have to rely on advertising. For example, tourism makes up one-third of the Czech Republic's economy. In order to promote the country's attractions, the Czech government has to advertise and sell its services to foreign consumers. Only well planned and well targeted advertising will bring more foreign tourists to the country.
In conclusion, I think that modern society needs advertising. Ads will keep us well informed about new products and services, but we should also bear in mind that advertising cigarettes and alcohol will definitely affect our children in negative way.
| Society does need an advertising but it is our responsibility to control the content and what kind of goods and services we would like to offer to our customers
modern society needs advertising
Ads will keep us well informed about new products and services
advertising cigarettes and alcohol will definitely affect our children in negative way
advertising alcohol, cigarettes, goods and services with adult content should be prohibited
these kind of ads will have negative effect to our children
Youngsters might be tempted to buy cigarettes or alcohol and later to start consume it on a daily basis
some countries take this issue seriously and advertising alcohol, cigarettes and materials with adult content is banned on those countries
by advertising companies, businesses, firms and individuals promote their goods and services
Thanks to ads we learn about new products, we can compare them and choose what’s the best for us
These days, not only many businesses, but also governments have to rely on advertising
tourism makes up one-third of the Czech Republic's economy
In order to promote the country's attractions, the Czech government has to advertise and sell its services to foreign consumers
Only well planned and well targeted advertising will bring more foreign tourists to the country |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: PETERSBURG, Ky. - Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.
Response: So will they be in front of or behind a leaf? | 40.0 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
I reviewed with interest the paper entitled “The Congress Impact Factor: a proposal….”and, as far as my knowledge goes, this is the first time that a metric evaluation of a medical congress is proposed.
The authors propose to measure an impact factor based on the mean H-index of invited lecturers normalized for lecture topic (i.e. the H-index of an author limited to the topic of the invited lecture) related to the number of invited lectures.
Obviously, this metric has several limitations that come both from the intrinsic original defects of the H-index and from the complexity of evaluating the quality of a conference and of the speakers.
In fact, the H-index reflects only the number of papers that have received a certain number of citations and does not include any information about the real contribution of that author to the manuscript nor the number of self citations.
Furthermore, it tends to increase with time with increasing number of citations even though that author is no more productive.
Because of these limitations several attempts have been made to improve the H-index trying to take into account the contribution of that author to the paper or the period of activity of the researcher adjusting for the number of years since the first publication.
Nonetheless, there still is no perfect index to measure the quality and quantity of research which may be affected by so many factors 1 - 4 .
In fact, some researchers that have deeply impacted the world of science do not have impressive H-index 2 , 3 .
Dealing with the world of medicine there is another point to consider that is practical expertise.
The professionalism of a physician is not represented by the H-index.
We all know that being scientifically very productive does not always correspond to being an “hands on” expert and to measure the practical expertise is an even more challenging task.
The implementation of such an index could significantly impact the choice of speakers and may leave out non productive “hands on” experts.
Finally, the metric may be affected by the number of speakers; i.e. a small conference may see its H-index rise if just a few authors with high H-index are invited.
In such a case, the median with the range may better reflect the overall composition of invited speakers.
Despite all these observations, I believe this paper deserves publication in order to start a serious discussion about scientific conferences.
However, I believe the road to develop an acceptable measure of the quality of a conference is still long and rough.
Coming specifically to the paper I have the following comments:
- Page 4, last paragraph before the discussion section: it should not be “between these two congresses…” but “…topics…”
- The discussion section should be partially rewritten taking into account the comments I made above and the fact that the H-index is not so robust.
The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the metric and the possible drawbacks.
- In the last paragraph of the discussion the authors state that the conference impact factor can become a valid instrument of education to develop a competitive academic curriculum vitae.
I disagree with this concept since participating to a conference does not necessarily correspond to an improvement of the professional knowledge.
In this view the CME program is more close to this concept than the IF of a conference that does not measure learning.
I would erase this sentence limiting the conclusion to the fact that the IFc may represent the first step in developing a simple tool to evaluate scientific conferences. | Structure
Strength
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Weakness
Other
Other
Weakness
Other
Strength
Other
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Other
Todo |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: You may disagree with my assessment - fine. I am at least doing you the courtesy of believing you when you say you formulate EAM with the express intention of promoting your personal philosophical views about life.
Response: **\nWhy not? Why would you doubt me? Unfortunately for your express denial of the materialist metaphysic as the philosophical view that informs the opinions you are trying to promote, that denial is worse than dubious, it's ridiculous.\nQuote:\nHere you reveal exactly what I've just spoken of--you assume that science and the scientific method equates to, is synonymous with, materialism/mechanism. It most certainly is not. Nor is the accompanying assumption, i.e., that any science which does not strictly adhere to materialust/mechanist assumptions, is not, and cannot be, real science. Equally untrue. \nAnd here you reveal your prediliction for reading what you want to see into the words of others. [/quote]\n**\nLet he who is without sin cast the first stone.\n | 1.16667 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: University education restriction
Universtiy is an entrance to life. It equips us with a package of wisdom and virtue to succeed. It is the importance of university that raises a question whether students with best scholastic performance deserve university study or just any young wishful people. Both sides are to be discussed before a conclusion is reached.
To begin with, outstanding academic students are eligible for university due to their intellectual advantage. To be precise, such abstract or complicated informatin, easily absorbed by those students, may prove as a matter of pressure for those who lack equivalent skills. Besides, it is undeniable that one deserves what he has done. University is like a gift presented to those who have gone to great length to attain.
However, university is not just about academic studies but also a place to nurture artistic talent and develop soft skills. Therefore, it should be up for grabs for a majority of young people, who wish to pursue their passion as well as develop comprehensively.
What is more, there is a tendency for social vices to rise if university is to be restricted to only the best people. Apart from the disheartened ones, many devoiding of neccessary preparations are likely to be recipes for failure when applying for jobs, mostly the white-collar ones.
In conclusion, university restriction has both pros and cons. In my opinion, it will yield more negative results than positive ones. That's why it should be made available for a wide range of learners. | it will yield more negative results than positive ones
it should be made available for a wide range of learners
it should be up for grabs for a majority of young people, who wish to pursue their passion as well as develop comprehensively
university is not just about academic studies but also a place to nurture artistic talent and develop soft skills
there is a tendency for social vices to rise if university is to be restricted to only the best people
Apart from the disheartened ones, many devoiding of neccessary preparations are likely to be recipes for failure when applying for jobs, mostly the white-collar ones
outstanding academic students are eligible for university due to their intellectual advantage
such abstract or complicated informatin, easily absorbed by those students, may prove as a matter of pressure for those who lack equivalent skills
it is undeniable that one deserves what he has done
University is like a gift presented to those who have gone to great length to attain |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: I\'ve new to this site and everything and have spent a lot of time going through the abortion forum because I\'m about to have one and am curious as to what people are discussing. It seems that a lot of people have very strong opinions on abortion, but that\'s about as far as it goes, opinions. Has anybody on this forum ever had any experience with abortions? Ever had one yourself or know someone who had gone through it?\nJust curious as to how many people have gone through this traumatic event because I know that for myself, even being pro-choice, my opinions and views have changed. For instance, I don\'t for a second buy into the bs that is "a fetus is not alive or a human being". I know for a fact that the baby growing inside me alive, I just cannot accept it at this time in my life. Thanks for your responses.
Response: Hello Aivlis, my name is Joe. Please let me tell you a little about my self. When I was twenty one I started dating my first girlfriend. She was seven years older then me. She had a seven year old little girl. I was working three jobs when we meet (one full time, two part time). Within six months she was pregnant (Yes we were stupid and did not use protection). I went out a bought a ring and proposed to her. She said yes. A short time later she told me she was going to get an abortion. I was devastated. I told her I would open a bank account in her name and have the pay from two of my jobs direct deposited into the account. I told her I would be there for her and our child. She still wanted to get an abortion. I told her I would raise the baby myself and that she would have no obligation, she still wanted to get an abortion. I told her I could not support her in this decision. The night before she went for the abortion, I begged her to reconsider. She would not. I wept like a baby because of this. I took me many years and the mercy and grace of God to heal from this life changing event. If there is anything I can say or do to get you to reconsider this please let me know. There are many people who would love to help you either keep your unborn child or find a safe loving home for him/her. My wife and I have a fifteen month old daughter, her name is Halley Raine. She is a real blessing, but she will never take the place of the child I would have had with my ex girlfriend. My other child would be about ten or eleven now. Please let me know if I can be of any help to you. What ever road you do decide to go down, I will be keeping you in my prayers. | 3.0 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: this should be because people that have wanted to commit suicide have gotten past the feeling and have lived full meaningful lives once they have seeked help.; Topic: Assisted suicide should be a criminal offence | pro |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "Or some part of the world that are in arid area believe that if they danced, the rain would come", argumentative component 2: "dancing are the part of people belief" | Yes |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Redresses imbalance between state and individual.
Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]
[1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJune06.pdf
Candidate 1: "Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes
Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies, [1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination. [2]
[1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009. http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadas-questionable-coalition/
[2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011. http://www.ejiltalk.org/sudan%E2%80%99s-lesson-for-secession-a-comment/"
Candidate 2: "Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.
Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]
[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting"
Candidate 3: "Improves standards in political governance.
The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.
Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system. [1]
[1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm"
Candidate 4: "Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.
Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.
Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.
For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.
[1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4th August 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195"
Candidate 5: "Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.
In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]
[1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf"
Candidate 6: "Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells."
Candidate 7: "People are currently bored with politics.
The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public. [1]
[1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/15/alternative-vote-referendum-chesterfield"
Candidate 8: "It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.
Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best."
Candidate 9: "It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems.
It may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly."
Candidate 10: "People are bored with politics because they think that it is irrelevant to them and that politicians are not interested in their opinions. Increasing the use of referendums is an excellent way of increasing engagement with the general public; it forces the political establishment to listen to popular opinion, and gives ordinary people a much greater say in how their country is run. See Proposition argument 3, above."
Candidate 11: "The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long."
Candidate 12: "Referendums are very artificial.
The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]
[1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568819.stm"
Candidate 13: "If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law."
Candidate 14: "Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.
People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]
[1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf"
Candidate 15: "It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides. [1]
[1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009. http://iilhr.org/documents/complookreferendumlaw.pdf"
Candidate 16: "The job of a government is necessarily long term.
It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.
Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.
This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.
[1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf%20documents/Attitudes.pdf
[2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html"
Candidate 17: "Public opinion is changeable
Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law. [1]
Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.
[1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/pathtodevolution/index.htm"
Candidate 18: "Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just."
Candidate 19: "Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.
As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)"
| The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.
|
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
It is a well written case report and the discussion is precise.
Main points for not approving this article are:
- Grading appears faulty as size of nidus, eloquence and drainage are suspicious on single images.
more images might have been helpful.
The AVM at best appears to be grade 3.
- As such, it would be a routine microsurgical excision of an AVM | Structure
Strength
Structure
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Other |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | Capital punishment is more humane than leaving someone to rot in a prison cell for the rest of their life and other punishments like solitary confinement. | 0.723294468 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Physical exercise should be required part of every school day
Although some people believe that students should spend the whole day on academic studies, I nevertheless believe that physical exercise is a crucial part of every school day. Exercise is good not only for having a good health body, but also for the mind. In addition, including exercise in children's daily routine, it is a good way to teach them the importance of physical activity from an early age.
Physical activity helps children to grow up physically healthier. As studies have shown that the rate of obesity in children has increased every year, it will be very beneficial for children to have a daily physical activity and get a break from being sitting several hours at school. In addition, exercise will help them to not be less exposed to illness related with cardiovascular, higher blood and cholesterol issues.
Daily exercise will help also to develop children's brain function. It is well known how important it is to exercise regularly to help the body system to work better. When people exercise, the respiratory system's function is enhanced, helping all organs, including the brain, to get more oxygen in. Daily exercise will provide children with a mental break which will boost them to be efficient learners.
Having children in the daily exercise routine from an early age will teach them the important value of having physical activity in their every day routine. Children are bombarded with lectures about nutrition and physical activity; however, they will be more beneficed if that knowledge can be put in practice. Moreover, they can stick with the routine and make the daily physical activities a good habit on their whole life.
Including physical activity in children's school day should be strongly considered. It will meliorate not only mental and body health, but also will establish in children a habit of doing it, giving them the opportunity to measure the worth of including such an important activity in their daily live schedules. | physical exercise is a crucial part of every school day
Exercise is good not only for having a good health body, but also for the mind
including exercise in children's daily routine, it is a good way to teach them the importance of physical activity from an early age
Physical activity helps children to grow up physically healthier
the rate of obesity in children has increased every year, it will be very beneficial for children to have a daily physical activity and get a break from being sitting several hours at school
exercise will help them to not be less exposed to illness related with cardiovascular, higher blood and cholesterol issues
Daily exercise will help also to develop children's brain function
It is well known how important it is to exercise regularly to help the body system to work better
When people exercise, the respiratory system's function is enhanced, helping all organs, including the brain, to get more oxygen in
Daily exercise will provide children with a mental break which will boost them to be efficient learners
Having children in the daily exercise routine from an early age will teach them the important value of having physical activity in their every day routine
Children are bombarded with lectures about nutrition and physical activity; however, they will be more beneficed if that knowledge can be put in practice
they can stick with the routine and make the daily physical activities a good habit on their whole life
It will meliorate not only mental and body health, but also will establish in children a habit of doing it, giving them the opportunity to measure the worth of including such an important activity in their daily live schedules
Including physical activity in children's school day should be strongly considered |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Or another example of how denying homosexuals access access to anything but the same legal institutions as heterosexuals will never result in equality. The domestic partner registry just isn't sufficient; why would anyone think that creating a similar marriage-substitute will be equal?
Response: Does that mean a pat on the head isn't the same as getting a peice of chocolate cake? | -0.5 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: The political consequences of the system make the world less safe
Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.
Candidate 1: "MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. In terms of deterring conventional warfare, that assumes that the state being attacked would chose mutual destruction over potential, transitory subjugation. MAD has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used (Sagan, 1993). National missile defense systems provide a very real defense against not only full-scale attacks by other states, but against nuclear-capable rogue states, such as North Korea, which is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology of its own. Should North Korea ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, the world will need the ability to counter it. National missile defense is simply a strategic necessity of the modern world in which nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable, aggressive states who might actually try to use them."
Candidate 2: "It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament."
Candidate 3: "Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:
Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security."
Candidate 4: "A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal
With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide."
Candidate 5: "While missile defense technology still has problems that need to be worked out, its future is very promising. The most recent technology, Aegis, is far more effective in testing than its predecessors and has been deployed on a number of Navy warships and in Japan and Australia (McMichael, 2009). The technology will with time become extremely effective at stopping enemy missiles. In a world with more and more countries developing nuclear weapons, many who oppose the United States and its allies, it is imperative that the United States has an effective defense against them. A missile defense system is the most promising such defense."
Candidate 6: "The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier."
Candidate 7: "Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore."
Candidate 8: "As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability
The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue."
Candidate 9: "Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe."
Candidate 10: "The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work
Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely."
Candidate 11: "A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies
The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable."
Candidate 12: "Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating
An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive."
Candidate 13: "Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits."
| The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: No, it's not safe. What's your point?
Response: I believe it to be safe. | -1.5 |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Putin is a regional bully who only understands strength. America is being tested, both in its commitment to the European alliance and its resolve to maintain the international order. Failure to act will result in the collapse of Ukraine’s economy and rout of its forces on its eastern front. If this happens, the spark of freedom there will be snuffed out yet again by Russian imperialism. It is imperative that the United States and the entire NATO membership stand unified against Putin’s “ethnic-Russian” ambitions in Europe and meet any further challenges with concerted action and force. If the United States falters, expect Russia to test NATO’s resolve in the Baltics, especially Estonia and Latvia, both of which have large ethnic Russian populations. This would be a show-changer for the United States, as these nations are NATO members and, under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, we are obligated to come to their aid if they are attacked. How such a war would look I address extensively in a publicly available document called Project 1721. | Putin is a regional bully who only understands strength. America is being tested, both in its commitment to the European alliance and its resolve to maintain the international order. Failure to act will result in the collapse of Ukraine’s economy and rout of its forces on its eastern front If this happens, the spark of freedom there will be snuffed out yet again by Russian imperialism. It is imperative that the United States stand unified against Putin’s “ethnic-Russian” ambitions in Europe and meet any further challenges with concerted action and force. If the United States falters, expect Russia to test NATO’s resolve in the Baltics, especially Estonia and Latvia This would be a show-changer for the United States, as these nations are NATO members and, under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, we are obligated to come to their aid if they are attacked |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: afford | I do n't think it 's possible to clone a human being , and even if you could the technology is not affordable for most people on earth ( unless they have access to some sort of stem cell therapy ) so there would be no way to make them into an army in less than 100 years . |
Detect the argumentative relations between the propositions identified and segmented in an argumentative dialogue. Such relations are: Default Inference (provide a reason to accept another proposition), Default Conflict (provide an incompatible alternative to another proposition), Default Reformulation (rephrase, restate or reformulate another proposition) and No Relation. | Proposition1: Grant Shapp's reasoning as to why it was difficult to get enough PPE doesn't answer the question
Proposition2: Audience Member 13 is sympathetic to Grant Shapp's reasoning as to why it was difficult to get enough PPE | Default Conflict |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | As time goes on, I realize how grateful I am that I work for a good company with a potential retirement path. Large companies are excellent for people looking for health insurance and other benefits. I have several friends that work for smaller places in either my industry or ones like it, and they seriously get the shaft on EVERYTHING. Less pay, no health insurance, no paid vacation, no 401k, no guaranteed pay raises, the list goes on. My company offers all those and many more. It really factored into my decision of where I decided to work for a career. Nowadays the worry of social security failing in the US is very real, it may not be there when I retire. Working for a small business guarantees that you HAVE to save up on your paychecks that may not even be good enough just to be able to live when you’re older. I understand some smaller places might pay good, but having no benefits or retirement plans really ruins the whole gig. | Working for small businesses is no longer good for working class people. |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | An uptick in Russian naval activity and U.S. freedom-of-navigation ops mean more tension in 2019. 2019 could be a tense year in the waters of the Baltic and Black Seas between the U.S. and Russia, as demonstrated by an uptick of Russian naval activity in both regions. At the same time, Ukraine is reaching out more than ever to the United States or help, leaving Washington in the position of figuring out how to manage the needs of an ally under attack against the peril of escalating conflict. On Sunday, Russia “scrambled” a pair of warships to tail the U.S. destroyers Porter and Gravely in the Baltic Sea, Russian media outlet TASS reported. On Tuesday, the Russians simulated missile attacks on “sea targets,” a test of the targeting systems of the BAL coastal missiles deployed to the Baltic oblast of Kaliningrad, reported TASS. A thousand miles to the southeast, Russia recently deployed a BAL to the illegally annexed Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, and staged additional exercises there in December. This week, the U.S. destroyer Donald Cook arrived in the Sea to replace the dock landing ship Fort McHenry. “The U.S. Navy routinely operates in the Black Sea consistent with the Montreux Convention” — the treaty governing the Black Sea —“and international law. We expect other actors operating in the region to obey international law and avoid behaviors that would be considered unsafe or escalatory in nature,” Pentagon spokesperson Eric Pahon said. The U.S. naval moves take place after a major uptick in hostilities between Ukraine and Russia in the nearby Sea of Azov, connected to the Black Sea via the narrow Kerch Strait. In November, Russian forces seized Ukrainian vessels and sailors there in an attack Ukraine says was premeditated. Chatter in the region is up. “There’s been a lot of interesting Russian radio activity in the Southern military district…radio listeners reported multiple brigade and division chatter started yesterday evening. Possible readiness [exercise] coming up?” said Aki Heikkinen, curator of the site Russianmilitarywatch.com. If tensions continue to rise, history suggests that U.S. forces should prepare for an increase in electronic warfare, or EW, attacks. During the Azov Sea crisis, “Russian military units attacked Ukrainian ships with sophisticated EW methods,” Adm. Ihor Voronchenko, the commander of the Ukrainian Navy, told Defense One in December. Speaking through an interpreter, Voronchenko said the Russians disrupted the Iridium satellite communication system that Ukraine uses and spoofed GPS signals in the region. During Voronchenko’s visit to the United States he said, he met with U.S. Navy CNO Adm. John Richardson and other officials at the departments of Defense and State. The Ukrainian admiral asked for help acquiring Island-class and Mark VI patrol boats and various electronic sensors in 2018 to 2025. The State Department soon after asked Congress for an additional $10 million for the Ukrainian navy. Lawmakers have yet to take up the request. It’s one of several signs of a growing partnership. Since 2014, the United States has given Ukraine aid worth over $1 billion. Some $42 million of that came through the Global Security Contingency Fund, or GSCF — a pot of money largely funded by Defense but administered jointly by the Defense Department and State to better spread it across foreign government agencies. State officials say the money is helping Ukraine build up its National Guard, stand up its special operations forces teams, and advance toward interoperability with NATO. “You can see a lot of impact on the ground” an official affiliated with the program said. The official said that training and funds were helping more Ukrainian troops survive clashes with Russian-backed forces in Eastern Ukraine. “Survivability is up. Folks are coming back,” said the official. The official said there’s one more that the U.S. government can do, and at relatively low cost, to help in the fight: allow more foreign military sales to Ukraine. | 2019 could be a tense year in the waters of the Baltic and Black Seas between the U.S. and Russia, as demonstrated by an uptick of Russian naval activity in both regions Ukraine is reaching out more than ever to the United States or help, leaving Washington in the position of figuring out how to manage the needs of an ally under attack against the peril of escalating conflict The U.S. Navy routinely operates in the Black Sea consistent with the Montreux Convention” — the treaty governing the Black Sea —“and international law. We expect other actors operating in the region to obey international law and avoid behaviors that would be considered unsafe or escalatory in nature,” Pentagon spokesperson Eric Pahon said. The U.S. naval moves take place after a major uptick in hostilities between Ukraine and Russia in the nearby Sea of Azov Russian forces seized Ukrainian vessels and sailors there in an attack Ukraine says was premeditated. If tensions continue to rise, history suggests that U.S. forces should prepare for an increase in electronic warfare, or EW, attacks. Russian military units attacked Ukrainian ships with sophisticated EW methods disrupted the Iridium satellite communication system that Ukraine uses and spoofed GPS signals in the region State Department soon after asked Congress for an additional $10 million for the Ukrainian navy It’s one of several signs of a growing partnership. Since 2014, the United States has given Ukraine aid worth over $1 billion. funded by Defense but administered jointly by the Defense Department and State to better spread it across foreign government agencies. State officials say the money is helping Ukraine build up its National Guard, stand up its special operations forces teams, and advance toward interoperability with NATO. a lot of impact on the ground training and funds were helping more Ukrainian troops survive clashes with Russian-backed forces in Eastern Ukraine. the U.S. government can do to help in the fight: allow more foreign military sales to Ukraine. |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it
Every individual deserves to profit from his creative endeavours, and this is secured through the application of intellectual property rights. When an individual mixes his labour with capital or other resources, part of him inheres in the product that arises from his effort. This is the origin of property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function. [1] Intellectual property rights are protected by law in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should be. Individuals generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new invention, piece of replicable art, etc. have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Often the product of intellect is the source of income of an individual; the musician who is too old to play any longer, for example, may rely entirely upon revenues generated by their intellectual property rights to survive. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like intellectual property, and in practice they are a necessity to many people's livelihood.
[1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.
Candidate 1: "The salable and conferrable nature of intellectual property allows for the efficient and just distribution of ideas
Intellectual property rights are extremely important in the efficient and equitable allocation of ideas to firms and individuals1. The ability to sell intellectual property rights allows the price mechanism to assign ownership to the firms most likely to make a profit, and that are thus most likely to produce the product most efficiently, which will benefit all consumers. Furthermore, the ability to confer intellectual property rights on others is important, as often intellectual property, like licensing and patents, can support inventors' and artists' families after they are incapacitated or die. This is no different from the fact that ownership of physical property can be conferred for the betterment of dependents and family. It is only just that intellectual property be recognized and protected by law, so that it may be efficiently and fairly sold and transferred between parties."
Candidate 2: "There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:
An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. 1 Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company."
Candidate 3: "It is no more just that an individual's family benefit from a monopoly over an idea, than the individual who created it. There remains no inherent right to an idea. As for the sale of patents and licenses, firms will waste precious resources in fighting amongst each other for monopoly control over intellectual property, and will even buy the rights to products with no intention of using them, planning simply to prevent any competitors from doing so. The most efficient system is to have ideas be public and accessible and usable by everyone. When they are, more innovation will occur."
Candidate 4: "The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects."
Candidate 5: "There is no significant slowing down of the spread of information in the long run, since intellectual property generally only lasts for a short time, meaning owners have an incentive to make the most of it while they can. Besides, any small slowing down of the spread of ideas and innovations is a small price to pay for the recognition of a person's fundamental right to the product of his effort. Furthermore, licensing arrangements are becoming more and more refined to allow for the quick transfer of rights in order to meet societal demands for products. Licensing law has also begun to extend to products that producers may not wish to produce, such as medication for sick Africans, and is helping to force firms that refuse to act upon their patents to license the right to those that will."
Candidate 6: "Intellectual property rights incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products
When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product, or writing a new song, people put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people’s intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries’ investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The 2000 largest global companies invest more than €430 billion a year in researching new products1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment, which is why countries with less robust intellectual property rights schemes are not home to research and development firms. Without the protection of intellectual property rights, new inventions lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the invention and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Furthermore, intellectual property is particularly important to firms with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, or with low reverse engineering costs, such as computer, software, and pharmaceutical firms. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea2. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished. Within a robust intellectual property rights system, firms and individuals compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to “invent around” one another’s patents, leading to gradual improvements in technologies, benefiting consumers. Clearly, intellectual property is essential for a dynamic, progressive business world.
1 Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2009. “The 2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Socreboard”. Economics of Industrial Research and Innovation
2Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529."
Candidate 7: "It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. Efficiency and Justice are not the same thing. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their intellectual property rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. For the state the costs accrued by efforts to enforce intellectual property are repaid many fold by the fact that businesses feel safer to invest in them due to the perceived protections the state promises."
Candidate 8: "Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products."
Candidate 9: "The complications in the legal framework are not reason to eliminate intellectual property rights. In fact, most licensing arrangements are done swiftly and amicably between firms. Intellectual property battles over licensing arrangements are the exception rather than the rule. With intellectual property, firms feel free to share openly through licensing. Without it, they will be more reticent to share anything."
Candidate 10: "Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:
Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation."
Candidate 11: "Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:
The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate.
1 Legal Alert. 2009. "PRO-IP Act Promises Increased Focus on IP Rights and Expanded Counterfeiting Remedies". Sutherland.
2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property"."
Candidate 12: "No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavour. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it."
Candidate 13: "More ideas are not released into the public when there is intellectual property. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting intellectual property rights. The ideas circulating in the public domain are only expanded by the constant competition and innovation essential for firms to succeed in the absence of intellectual property protections."
Candidate 14: "Policing intellectual property rights is self-sustaining
While there is a cost to implementing intellectual property rights and policing them this cost is mostly met by those who apply for the patents. Each country’s patent office charges for the patent application, in the case of the UK this is between £230-280.1 It also costs to renew the patent year on year with the cost often rising. This means that the government offices that process intellectual property meet their costs through the user fees.2 Much of the costs of enforcement are also met by those who own the intellectual property as their patents enable them to go to court against those who they believe are infringing their intellectual property rights.
1 Intellectual Property Office, How much does it cost?
2 Inventors Digest, Patent Office Unveils New, Bigger Budget, 2011"
Candidate 15: "Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform""
Candidate 16: "Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products
An individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property. 1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'".The Guardian."
Candidate 17: "Intellectual property rights allow individuals to release their inventions into the public domain
Without the protection of intellectual property, artists, inventors, and innovators may develop ideas without ever releasing them to the public because they lack the ability to market them successfully, or to profit by their endeavours. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. The recognition of intellectual property rights encourages the release of ideas, inventions, and art to be released to the public, which serves to benefit society generally. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas and inventions to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the intellectual property right expires1. If the idea never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset. 1 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line."
Candidate 18: "While there is little cost to the government of recognizing intellectual property rights there is a big cost to those whose intellectual property is being protected. The cost of both processing and enforcement is passed on to the users who are the people who are most innovative. This is adding a cost to innovation and so making it less attractive to innovate."
Candidate 19: "The complicated legal arrangements created by intellectual property raise costs of doing business:
Many firms cannot act independently, but rather rely on the technology and systems of other firms. The complicated, and often convoluted, licensing arrangements needed by many firms to function sap resources and effort, slowing productivity and causing general economic sluggishness. In high-tech and science research firms particularly, mutual licensing pacts are needed that often slow production and advancement due to the complicated legal arrangements that must be entered into to allow firms to go about their business. For example, the recent battle over rights to computer technology between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, which has cost both firms millions of dollars in legal fighting1. These costs are entirely mitigated in the absence of intellectual property rights, as ideas flow freely and people can go about their business without the complications of licensing. 1 Orlowski, Andrew. 2011. "Oracle and Itanic: Tech's Nastiest Ever Row?". The Register."
| No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavour. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it.
|
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "beautiful environment is one of basic physiological needs, which are the most fundamental requirements for people", argumentative component 2: "Factories released a huge amount of wasters into river and soil" | Yes |
Given the following essay as context, and a list of argumentative components extracted from the essay. Label each argumentative component as "major claim", "claim", or "premise". | Essay: How teachers can make the subject interesting to students!
There are many ways of teaching. Some people believe that strictly and carefully presenting theories in the class is the best way of teaching, while others assert that involving applications on that theory will be more convincing. In my opinion, I agree with the second idea that the best way for teachers to make students more interested in a subject is to explain how that subject can help and apply to their lives outside school.
First of all, by explaining how the subject contributes to daily life, students will have vivid impression on that subject thus become more interested and active in acquiring the knowledge on that subject. Take chemistry for example, merely memorizing the names of the substances and the structural formulas seems to be very boring, while representing where and how those chemical reactions really happen near students will raise their curiosity and lead them to digest those theories learned from the class. While I was in senior high school, my chemical teacher once showed us how the detergent dissolves oil by an experiment and later on taught us how to describe this process with formal structural formulas. This type of learning method is more fun and eventually the results are good. I connected the visual images of that experiment with the formula and I barely forget, even though now I'm not studying chemistry anymore.
Second, by bridging the theories with daily life events, students are given the chance to apply knowledge to their lives and develop their own ability of problem-solving. This will address students' interests because it's the assignment that needs real life participation. For example, in law class, students are informed their rights and duties and they are taught how they can apply law to different situations that might happen upon them. When any one of the situations occurs, they can think independently and figure out how to react.
In conclusion, using life experiences and examples to demonstrate the knowledge on a subject is an effective way to attract students' attention and keep them eager on learning, not only because it reinforces students' impression on the knowledge but also invites students to practice the knowledge out on their own.
Argumentative components: the best way for teachers to make students more interested in a subject is to explain how that subject can help and apply to their lives outside school
using life experiences and examples to demonstrate the knowledge on a subject is an effective way to attract students' attention and keep them eager on learning
it reinforces students' impression on the knowledge but also invites students to practice the knowledge out on their own
by explaining how the subject contributes to daily life, students will have vivid impression on that subject thus become more interested and active in acquiring the knowledge on that subject
Take chemistry for example, merely memorizing the names of the substances and the structural formulas seems to be very boring, while representing where and how those chemical reactions really happen near students will raise their curiosity and lead them to digest those theories learned from the class
While I was in senior high school, my chemical teacher once showed us how the detergent dissolves oil by an experiment and later on taught us how to describe this process with formal structural formulas
This type of learning method is more fun and eventually the results are good
I connected the visual images of that experiment with the formula and I barely forget, even though now I'm not studying chemistry anymore
by bridging the theories with daily life events, students are given the chance to apply knowledge to their lives and develop their own ability of problem-solving
This will address students' interests
it's the assignment that needs real life participation
in law class, students are informed their rights and duties and they are taught how they can apply law to different situations that might happen upon them
When any one of the situations occurs, they can think independently and figure out how to react | Major claims:
the best way for teachers to make students more interested in a subject is to explain how that subject can help and apply to their lives outside school
using life experiences and examples to demonstrate the knowledge on a subject is an effective way to attract students' attention and keep them eager on learning
Claims:
the best way for teachers to make students more interested in a subject is to explain how that subject can help and apply to their lives outside school
using life experiences and examples to demonstrate the knowledge on a subject is an effective way to attract students' attention and keep them eager on learning
it reinforces students' impression on the knowledge but also invites students to practice the knowledge out on their own
by explaining how the subject contributes to daily life, students will have vivid impression on that subject thus become more interested and active in acquiring the knowledge on that subject
by bridging the theories with daily life events, students are given the chance to apply knowledge to their lives and develop their own ability of problem-solving
Premises:
Take chemistry for example, merely memorizing the names of the substances and the structural formulas seems to be very boring, while representing where and how those chemical reactions really happen near students will raise their curiosity and lead them to digest those theories learned from the class
While I was in senior high school, my chemical teacher once showed us how the detergent dissolves oil by an experiment and later on taught us how to describe this process with formal structural formulas
This type of learning method is more fun and eventually the results are good
I connected the visual images of that experiment with the formula and I barely forget, even though now I'm not studying chemistry anymore
This will address students' interests
it's the assignment that needs real life participation
in law class, students are informed their rights and duties and they are taught how they can apply law to different situations that might happen upon them
When any one of the situations occurs, they can think independently and figure out how to react |
Detect the argumentative relations between the propositions identified and segmented in an argumentative dialogue. Such relations are: Default Inference (provide a reason to accept another proposition), Default Conflict (provide an incompatible alternative to another proposition), Default Reformulation (rephrase, restate or reformulate another proposition) and No Relation. | Proposition1: the great success of the vaccine programme is it doesn't matter how much money you have
Proposition2: the great success of the vaccine programme is that you have a right | Default Inference |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.
Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.
1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan."
2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.
Candidate 1: "Promoting democracy promotes peace.
By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1
1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC."
Candidate 2: "Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.
Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.
1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan."
2 Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy."
Candidate 3: "It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms."
Candidate 4: "To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?"
Candidate 5: "Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.
Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.
1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times."
Candidate 6: "Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.
There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions."
Candidate 7: "Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change."
Candidate 8: "Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.
If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.
1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy"
Candidate 9: "Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted."
| Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.
There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: There anything other than distance to stop people going to another state?
Response: Yes, it is against the law in most states to do that. | 3.33333 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments phrased as counters. | Argument: Denial of privacy to the leaders
The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader.
The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1
1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006, http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/pitt.html
Candidate 1: "The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information."
Candidate 2: "All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President."
Candidate 3: "If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy."
Candidate 4: "If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do."
Candidate 5: "Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1
1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/polio.html"
Candidate 6: "Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover."
Candidate 7: "When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign."
Candidate 8: "Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty."
| When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Climate change
Quote: Did you know prior to humans it was at .018%?
Response: This one is particularly eggregious. Source?\nWaxy | -0.5 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
Needs more figures to demonstrate why a user would choose this tool.
For example http://leekgroup.github.io/regionReportSupp/bumphunter-example/index.html (but even better would be to show an example, e.g. ITGB2 exon inclusion/exclusion or multiscale DMRs, where in our hands at least, nothing else short of IGV really does the job, and IGV doesn't do it that well.)
The software is a firm foundation but the writeup needs work if it is to be compelling and thus influence readers to try out an unfamiliar tools.
My apologies for being harsh, but without figures, an applied paper simply will not be read.
I would be less harsh if the underlying work were not compelling enough to command broader interest.
A poor writeup will doom the work to obscurity. | Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Other
Other |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants
The system of repatriating illegal immigrants can be proven harmful for these immigrants on several levels. Some illegal immigrants, although they might not fall under the official category of refugees, have fled dangerous situations such as persecution, violation of human rights and severe poverty. In 2009, France and the UK sent back several migrants that had fled the Taliban to Afghanistan when the country was still at war1. To send these people back to their country of origin would be a severe attack on their liberty and security. Having a zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration will also make it harder for those who are trafficked to escape from criminal gangs because if they contact the authorities they will be sent home. This gives the criminals behind people-trafficking more power over their victims and will lead to worse living/working conditions in illegal industries.
1 The Telegraph, "France deports illegal Afghan migrants on joint Franco-British flight", 22 October 2009,, accessed 31 August 2009
Candidate 1: "A repatriation policy will not effectively target this area of illegal immigration. Criminal networks will always find ways of smuggling people into a country and evading detection. All a repatriation policy will do is make these gangs more sophisticated when it comes to hiding illegal immigrants. This not only makes it more difficult to discover and undermine these networks, but also puts the illegal immigrants that are involved in these criminal activities at risk. If there is a standard repatriation policy for all illegal immigrants, vulnerable groups such as trafficked women are less likely to seek help, because not only is it likely that they will be repatriated, but they also put the lives of themselves and their families at risk by going through this procedure, rather than receiving anonymous help. As a result, illegal immigrants that are often at the bottom of criminal organisation will be worse off, while the criminal at the top will get more power over their victims."
Candidate 2: "Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developing countries in unlikely to improve anytime soon. Giving illegal immigrants temporary working visas will not stop some immigrants from staying in their host country after their visas have expired if they prefer the living conditions. Even in the case where they do decide to go back to their country of origin, this means the money they have earned will be spent there, and not in the country they have worked. This means the states loses out on revenue."
Candidate 3: "Illegal immigration is facilitated by criminal networks
Repatriating illegal immigrants would lead to fewer opportunities for criminal networks to gain entry to the country. Illegal Immigration is linked to dangerous criminal activity such as people and drug trafficking, terrorism and the sex trade. An estimated 270 000 victims of human trafficking live in industrialized countries, of whom 43% are forced into commercial sexual exploitation, mostly women and girls1. This is both dangerous for those involved in illegal immigration but also increases the criminal activity in a country, putting lawful residents at risk. The state also has a duty to protect its citizens from the harms associated with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration fuels dangerous industries such as prostitution and the drug trade, repatriating illegal immigrants cuts off a vital source of labour for these industries and could contribute to the eradication of these industries.
1 UN.GIFT, "Human Trafficking: The Facts",, accessed 31 August 2011"
Candidate 4: "The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that people have the right of freedom of movement, but this right is restricted to the borders of one's home country, and are widened by international agreements. But even then the freedom of movement can be restricted, even for people in Western countries. If we take the example of a European or an American that wants to go on holiday to a tropical island, we see that freedom of movements is relative. Legally this person can be free to go, but if he or she does not have money to pay a ticket or refuses to do so, this right can still be taken away."
Candidate 5: "There are many alternatives to a repatriation policy that will more effectively target the problems caused by illegal immigration. Countries can toughen border controls and have better systems in place for granting asylum. Voluntary repatriation is unworkable, even if accompanied by financial assistance, because many illegal immigrants want to stay in the country. Involuntary repatriation is inhumane and harmful because it restricts the freedom of movement for people, and separates them from their family and friends, whilst they are forced to go back to potentially harmful situations. Repatriation will not stop the numbers of people coming to the country. Illegal immigration does not occur because a country is a 'soft touch': very few, if any, countries have no problems with illegal immigration. The reasons behind immigration are social, political and economic and have nothing to do with an individual country's policy on illegal immigration. Those who turn to illegal immigration are often desperate and will pay no attention to the immigration policies of a country."
Candidate 6: "Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2.
1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011
2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011"
Candidate 7: "Costs of illegal migrants and harm to labour market
Illegal immigrants cost the state in money, time and resources. It is difficult to give an accurate number on the cost of illegal immigrants for the rest of the population (the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has come up with numbers as high as $1,183 per household in the state of California1), but they are likely to put a strain on resources by not paying taxes whilst demanding social services such as healthcare and education. As a result, they take taxpayer's money away from those who are lawfully entitled to use these services and put a burden on the state. Moreover, illegal immigrants undercut the labour market by accepting low wages and working under illegal conditions. This is harmful to lawful residents because it takes employment opportunities away from them and encourages employers to seek illegal labour in order to keep costs down. Removing the illegal workforce would increase the number of jobs available to lawful residents and force employers to pay fair wages and provide safe working conditions.
1 Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens", 2006,, accessed 31 August 2011"
Candidate 8: "Loss of trust in the government
Failing to remove illegal immigrants undermines public confidence in the government and its migration policy. In the UK, opposition leader Ed Milliband has acknowledged that Labour had lost trust in the south by underestimating the number of illegal immigrants and the impact they would have on people's wages1. People believe that allowing those who have no right to remain in the country to stay on means the whole immigration system is broken. Legitimate migrants such as refugees, students and those with visas for work will be lumped together with illegal immigrants, and calls will grow for all forms of migration to be restricted. Populist feeling may also be inflamed against ethnic minorities, with increased social tensions.
1 BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13133544"
Candidate 9: "There needs to be a tough stance to prevent illegal immigration.
The only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration is to take a hard-line stance and adopt policies of repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants, after it has been proven through a fair hearing that they have no legitimate reason to stay, will be granted a period of voluntary repatriation, where they receive counselling and help to return to their country. If this does not work, and the illegal immigrant wants to stay, he or she will forced to repatriate. Repatriation is needed because illegal immigrants are residing in a country which is different from their country of origin, without fulfilling the legal requirements to do so. They also do not make the same contributions to the state as other people do, such as paying taxes. This means that illegal immigrants are actively harming the legal system, the citizens of the country and legal immigrants. At the same time, the number of illegal immigrants is rising every year, with an estimated 11.5-12 million illegal immigrants living in the US alone1. These kind of numbers show that the rules on immigration need to come with tough sanctions to ensure that they are not exploited or broken in the future. Repatriation is necessary because it targets successful illegal immigrants and ensures a comprehensive immigration policy that aims to reduce illegal immigration. What this policy of repatriation will do, is that it firstly will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country, which will lead to a decline of harms caused by them. Secondly, it will act as a strong deterrence for future immigrants. Repatriation sends a message to potential illegal migrants that their presence in the country will not be tolerated and that any attempt to stay in the country illegally will be unsuccessful.
1 BBC News, "BBC guide on illegal immigration in the US", 2005, accessed 31 August 2011"
Candidate 10: "Repatriation is immoral
The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that illegal immigrants are severely restricted in their freedom of movement. In the Western world, people can move around relatively easily, and this is seen as an inalienable right. To restrict this for people that do not come from this part of the world would be inhumane. Moreover, illegal immigrants have often built their lives in the country they reside in, having a family, sometimes children, work and a social circle. Often, children from illegal immigrants get citizenship because of their age, whilst their parents are repatriated. This forceful separation of children from their parents is a violation of their human rights, as article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the family is the natural unit in society which is entitled to state protection1. Separating children from their mother can be seen as a violation of this right.
1 United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948,, accessed 31 August 2011"
Candidate 11: "It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the relative short-term cost of repatriation. Alternatives, such as nationalisation of immigrants are also very costly and time-intensive, and would moreover encourages more potential migrants to come and obtain the country's nationality."
Candidate 12: "Alternatives are better
There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigration by focusing on border controls and improving economic conditions in countries where migrants come from. Trade agreements between developed and developing countries could be improved, which gives poorer countries more opportunities to trade. Most illegal immigrants migrate to Western countries to earn money, so if there are more opportunities for foreign workers to operate legally and on a temporary basis, with the assurance that they can come back if needed, this will remove the current incentive for many illegal immigrants to stay in their host country."
Candidate 13: "It is impossible to prove that all illegal immigrants are a drain on the system and so their cost to society cannot be used as a justification for repatriation policies. Many illegal immigrants pay taxes in some way and actually contribute to the economy of a country. For instance, every time an illegal immigrant buys something, they pay the same amount of sales tax or VAT as any other person. Illegal immigrants do not always undercut the labour market. The illegal workforce is a necessary part of the economy because lawful residents do not want jobs such as casual labour, agricultural or domestic jobs. Illegal immigrants often provide vital services that would otherwise be too expensive or hard to find if regular workers were employed e.g. cleaning, childcare and manual labour. Goods would become too expensive to produce if, for example, parts of the agriculture industry had to employ lawful residents/migrants."
Candidate 14: "Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic
The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigrants would cost the government approximately $285 billion over five years. (A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for "every man, woman, and child in this country)."1 In separate research released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce US GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.1
The impracticality of repatriation lies not only in the costs of the transportation and the help given to immigrants, but also in the time and effort of finding all illegal immigrants. A repatriation policy would be never-ending and a waste of time and money. It would be better to target only those illegal immigrants who pose a proven risk of harm to society.
1. Apsan, 2010 http://news.jornal.us/article-4716.Mass-Deportation-Of-illegal-Immigrant..."
Candidate 15: "The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is an impossible task to start with, so if this policy is adopted and fails in its execution, this will lead to a greater loss of trust in the government. If immigration policies focus more on the integration of illegal immigrants, this will have a more beneficial effect than criminalizing them. Marking illegal immigrants as criminals that have to leave the country as soon as possible will actually incite more conflict between migrants and populists."
| Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of legal (absence of discrimination, free from persecution), physical (freedom from attack, safe routes for return) and material (access to livelihoods) safety1. If this is not the case, these people should be given temporary asylum. Victims of trafficking are usually given special protection, as is the case with the EU, which also imposes tough rules on criminals involved2.
1 Refugee Council Online, "Definitions of voluntary returns", accessed 31 August 2011
2 European Commission, "Addressing irregular immigration", 30 June 2011, , accessed 31 August 2011
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: I don't believe that he likes women very much. In fact, I am rather concerned about how Cybererratus feels about women.
Response: a) Ad homimem fallacy\nb) Strawman`s fallacy\nCould you debate honestly?\n | 0.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region
If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules that has to be borne despite the harms such a breach might cause.
Violence and insecurity within the Libyan region would negatively affect US security. Firstly through the fact that poverty and conflict often breed religious radicalism and can often result in terrorism which directly harms the US as the most visible world power. Secondly, the US intervening is necessary to show members of the Middle East and North Africa that it is willing to support the region during a time of taxing transitions from old dictatorships to often weak democracies. Further, it shows that the US is compassionate in that it is unwilling to stand by and allow regions to descend into humanitarian crises.
The intervention also prevented a flood of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia.1 Egypt itself is currently undergoing democratic change and such a crisis might have forced that process backward. Tunisia is undergoing a similar transition and America needs to show support for these countries so that the governments that are established in the future will view America in a positive light.
Finally such an intervention is necessary owing to the role that the US and the people of the US feel that it should take in the world. Standing aside whilst a humanitarian crisis unfolds goes against the ideals that the US stands for. Further, given this revolution is likely seeking a democratic government it seems inconsistent that the US would not help countries aiming to become more like the US. 2,3
Wauquiez , Laurent, ‘Libya/no-fly zone/sanctions/refugees – NATO intervention/Arab reaction’, France in the United States, 8 March 2011,
Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011
Text of Obama’s Speech on Libya: “A Responsibility to Act.” NPR.org 28/03/2011
Candidate 1: "Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1
Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2
‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan (1941)’, ourdocuments.gov,
Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011"
Candidate 2: "Congress was appropriately and openly consulted
Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future.”1
Further, even if this is not true Obama did consistently consult congress regarding the mission, with Obama’s justification claiming: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."
Finally, the Senate was also consulted and passed a resolution that condemned the gross and systematic violation of the rights of the Libyan people by Gadaffi. As such, a large portion of the U.S. governing body was consulted by Obama and as such, a small amount of discretion in this area can be tolerated. 2
United States Activities in Libya, p.7,
Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
Candidate 3: "The United States engaged in "hostilities" under War Powers
There are multiple arguments indicating why the U.S. might be engaged in hostilities under the War Powers Act, enough so that this single argument could make an entire two person case.
The U.S. has engaged in sustained hostilities in Libya which have resulted in regime change within the country. The President himself admits that causing regime change would be unjustifiable in his speech justifying the war by pledging that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”2 However, regime change was the result of the mission and NATO and U.S. played a significant role in facilitating that change.
Secondly, the War Powers act covers the U.S. fighting in a supportive role in wars. "For purposes of this chapter, the term 'introduction of United States Armed Forces' includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.”3 Hence the U.S. is acting in violation of this condition.
Further, troops do not need to be on the ground to call the Libyan engagement hostilities. U.S. men and women have firstly died in the conflict, but secondly if troops were needed on the ground for a war, a U.S. president could potentially fire a thousand missiles at a country without the engagement being considered a war.
Further, even though the U.S. gave powers to NATO, it maintained a lead role in this coalition force. As such, the engagement should still be subject to U.S. laws and rules.
Finally, the sheer cost of the engagement to the U.S. taxpayer implies that it should be considered a war. The cost of the war has been more than $1 million per day.1
Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011
BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,
United States Congress, 50 USC CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, 7 January 2011,"
Candidate 4: "The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up.
The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compromise sometimes in order to fulfil the responsibilities it has taken on within these organisations.
Libya is simply an example of one of these compromises and this does not harm the constitution any further than the US initially did by entering into these agreements and institutions. 1, 2
Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011
Stone, Daniel. “Is the Libya War Legal” The Daily Beast. 22/03/2011"
Candidate 5: "Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared war on Japan within two days of the Japanese launching their attack on Pearl Harbor showing that declarations of war can be pushed through congress quickly when there is the need.1
Secondly, whilst some of congress, the leadership was consulted regarding the actions in Libya, all of congress was not. This harms the portrayal of congress as an important and representative body when more minor members are not consulted for very important decisions made by the state. As such, no discretion can be allowed in this area because to do so is to harm the institutions upon which the US is founded.2
‘Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War
Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011"
Candidate 6: "The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors." 1
As such it is justifiable to say that the conflict in Libya do not amount to legal hostilities. Secondly, the U.S. gave control of the operation in Libya to NATO on April 1st 2011. As such the U.S. government is not in violation of U.S. laws as it is not the U.S. prosecuting hostilities should they be considered to be happening. It is instead NATO doing it. Given that NATO is part of U.S. spending and that NATO commitments require contribution from all member states in some way, the U.S. does not have to justify the engagement in law as the U.S. is not culpable for its participation, NATO is.
Further, whilst regime change was a consequence in Libya, it was not the military objective of the campaign in Libya, which was to simply limit Gadaffi’s ability to use aircraft to visit harm upon his citizens. Regime change was just a happy coincidence that benefitted the people in Libya. As such the conflict did not amount to “hostilities” as U.S. participation in said conflict was incredibly limited. 2
BBC News, ‘Libya: Obama says US intervention will be limited’, 29 March 2011,
Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
Candidate 7: "The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.S. democratic system has been undermined and more powers have been given to the presidency. In the future this could lead to further bad decisions for the united states as presidents are required to prove less in order to take stronger action.1
Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011"
Candidate 8: "Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy.
Secondly, a UN resolution that allowed the use of air power by countries to protect civilians.1 This means that fears of conflict escalation are unfounded and given that the UN resolution exists, the war powers act is not weakened significantly as it would still mandate a UN resolution to prevent conflict escalation.
Even if the U.S. government sought regime change however, it has moral legitimacy in doing so because of the demand for such changes from a large number of members of the international community.2
Lynch, Colum, ‘Security Council passes resolution authorizing military intervention in Libya’, Turtle Bay Foreign Policy, 17 March 2011,
“War Powers Act.” Cornell University Law School."
Candidate 9: "US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law
Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in order to prosecute the war is incredibly harmful as it undermines one of the core institutions in U.S. democracy.
Further, the use of international organisations such as the UN and NATO to circumvent congress has bad ramifications for the future as in doing this the U.S. government has significantly lowered the burden required to go to war should it wish to do so in the future.
This is problematic because the decision to go to war should never be one that is taken lightly. Should the U.S. wish to go to war again then it might end up in a situation such as Vietnam, the conflict that inspired the creation of the war powers act.1
Ackerman, Bruce. “Obama’s Unconstitutional War.” ForeignPolicy.com 24/03/2011"
Candidate 10: "The Libya intervention lacks sufficient international authority
Firstly, the UN intervention in Libya wrongly rests on NATO authority. The use of NATO to circumvent congressional approval in this situation violates the initial agreement regarding the participation of the U.S. in NATO that was ratified by congress. As such, even if the U.S. is legitimate in going to war and the circumvention of war powers can be justified, the circumvention using NATO cannot.
Secondly, the use of UN approval to circumvent congress means that the UN charter and the ideals of the UN have been placed by the government at a higher level of value than of the US constitution. If this is the case then the government has undermined the validity of the US constitution and through doing that has undermined all laws within the U.S. which is harmful should the U.S. wish to project power in a way that is contrary to the UN’s wishes.1
Editorial: “Obama’s illegal war” The Washington Times. 18/03/2011"
Candidate 11: "Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention
The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by Gadaffi’s air forces. Such bombing attacks led to significant civilian casualties.1
Following the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 the United States placed on itself a moral mandate that ‘never again’ would such massacres be allowed to continue without intervention. Had the uprising been put down, reprisals by Gadaffi would have been swift and likely resulted in many innocents being killed. 2 The United States had to step in.
Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TESXT)’ AP/The Huffington Post, 28 March 2011,
Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, 15/06/2011"
| The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.S. democratic system has been undermined and more powers have been given to the presidency. In the future this could lead to further bad decisions for the united states as presidents are required to prove less in order to take stronger action.1
Greenwald, Glenn. “The illegal war in Libya.” Salon. 19/05/2011
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: So, Archie, nothing matters if it is outside of America?
Response: Sure they matter. But that isn't the issue here. You posted this in the abortion forums as if this medical malpractice which is taking place in an impoverished third world country is justification for it in America. That is a ludicrous and totally bogus argument to make.\nIf you thought rationally, you would have it in the health forum and be complaining about how third world countries are so ill prepared for this common problem when we have the technology so readily available to avoid it. My Lord simone, a simple C-Section is all that is required to make this a non issue for mother and baby. \nBut you ignorantly post this drivel as if abortion is the solution. It makes no sense at all, and yet you post it thinking that you're contributing something rational. Go figure, huh!!! emoticonXFrazzled | -0.8 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: No, I\'m saying it\'s OK because abortion is legal in this country. I was just pointing out that it\'s also legal to execute a convicted killer, and it\'s fine and dandy to declare wars where many people will die. "Thall shalt not kill, unless there is a war".
Response: Thou Shalt Not Kill. \nSeems to be a pretty convenient verse to throw around. Does anyone who actually quotes the Bible bother to look up the Hebrew meanings? I don\'t think so. \nYou have to remember that the OT is wrote in Hebrew, Chaldean, and some Arabic. For the most part, words we use today, will have the same meaning. But in some instances they DON\'T. \nTake the word "kill" for an example. If you own a Bible dictionary or concordance then it should inform you that the word kill in the Ten Commandments means to commit manslaughter. There is alot more to the actual commentary on this word and it is quite interesting. \nBut to say that killing was breaking a specific commandment and to use that as a reasoning against capital punishment is wrong. How do you explain all the wars that rage after the commandments were penned? How do you explain the cities of refuge set up for those folks quilty of accidentally killing another person. See Numbers 35:11. Distinctly two different meanings for the word kill. | 0.0 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The article provides very interesting information on geographical mapping of Zika virus in Tolima (Colombia).
The title and abstract are totally appropriate and represent an adequate summary of the article.
There is a comprehensive explanation of the study design with detail description of all methods used, and with appropriate citations.
Results are well illustrated in table and figures, and the article is written in grammatically correct and well-understandable scientific language.
The conclusions are balanced and totally justified on the basis of the results.
All sufficient information has been provided for replication of calculations performed by authors.
For the further researches, it would be interesting to compare provided by authors results with results obtained in other areas of Colombia and with results from other countries of Latin America. | Structure
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Other |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population
The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.
Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009
[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98ad6046-2584-11e0-8258-00144feab49a.html ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011
Candidate 1: "There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined. [1]
[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005."
Candidate 2: "The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.
Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.
[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.
[2] http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country."
Candidate 3: "Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration."
Candidate 4: "There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks." [1]
[1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-turkey-will-not-be-admitted-to-the-eu.html ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005"
| The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.
Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.
[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.
[2] http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.
|
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "if you aren't extremely dedicated or have good time management skills, it may be very difficult to complete a course at home", target argumentative component: "Studying at home by using technology is convenient" | attack |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Deleuze and Guattari are important for a focus on resistance. Pivotal to a DeleuzianGuattarian ontology is that its ‘elements’ – defined in terms of forces, fluxes and their relations – exist in a processual state. For them, ‘the general theory of society is a generalized theory of flows’. 59 It may be argued that the settler colonial paradigm does investigate processes, as, for instance, in Wolfe’s three-phased genealogy of settler domination. But the problem with this genealogy is the majoritarian role the monologue of oppression plays in it. To become a truly critical enterprise, settler colonial theory must foster an ethical sensibility towards the coexistence and competition of the myriad forces that aggregatively produce transformation or its arrest, and to translate this sensibility into a new methodology. Deterritorialisations and reterritorialisations occur, as Deleuze and Guattari explain, as ‘strictly complementary and coexistent, because one exists only as a function of the other’. 60 This ontological perspective may promote in settler colonial studies interpretations that acknowledge the multiplicity of the field of forces manufacturing the social. Deleuze and Guattari add: ‘It is in terms not of independence, but of coexistence and competition in a perpetual field of interaction, that we must conceive of exteriority and interiority, war machines of metamorphosis and state apparatuses of identity’. 61 The question is how to translate this ontology of social forces and flows into a model for what we commonly term ‘resistance’. The problem of theory with ‘phenomena of resistance’ is not only how we conceptualise the material and discursive manifestations of these phenomena and their potentialities, but also how we carry the linguistic burden of a concept – resistance – that etymologically and semantically, in all its various fields of application, speaks of ‘opposition to’ an acknowledged arrangement of organised force (electrical current, motion of solids or fluids, erosion, political power, and so forth). This convention is indeed problematic not only because there is more to ‘phenomena of resistance’ than operations of counterattack, but also because operations of counterattack have a low liberatory theoretical status, or as Wolfe puts it, because ‘in generating its own resistance, settler-colonial power also contains it’. 62 In my attempt to develop a model for ‘phenomena of resistance’, I propose firstly to retain the term resistance as employed in public discourse, and also in the humanities and the social sciences. In retaining the name of resistance for ‘phenomena of resistance’, I aim to challenge not only the straightjacket of designation (or denotation), but also the cuff of existent significations that make resistance as ‘opposition to’ to be the condition of truth and falsehood of the phenomena.63 Secondly, beyond controversies over the term resistance, what matters is the sense of ‘phenomena of resistance’, that is, an affection of dis-alignment of bodies (material and non-material bodies) in relation to common sense and the consensual patterns and directions of society.64 In resistance, as Deleuze put it, we resist ‘the temptation against being forced’ in the majoritarian directions of society and popular opinion.65 To move this discussion one step forward, we would need to provide an answer to the problem of the location of the initial gesture of dis-alignment. Given the arrangements of power, I would like to argue that ‘phenomena of resistance’ or dis-alignment may take place both before and after processes of capture, organisation and signification by forces operating in the space of interiority of systems. This suggestion risks being seen SETTLER COLONIAL STUDIES 27 as going against Deleuze and Guattari’s choices: in 1977 Deleuze writes to Foucault in a letter, I myself don’t wonder about the status resistance phenomena may have, since flights line are the first determinations, since desire assembles the social field, power arrangement are both products of these assemblages and that which stamps them out or seal them up.66 Lines of flights come first, power stratifies them after. Three years after, in A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari ratify this view that ‘power is a stratified dimension of the assemblage’, and that ‘lines of flight are primary’, that lines of flights ‘are not phenomena of resistance and counterattack’. 67 Hence, here they distinguish between flow/forces that in their nature are pre-capture, and other forces – of resistance or counterattack – operating as a reaction to power arrangements. Again, it is commonplace to see this distinction as a cautionary measure against mixing up always-already reterritorialised challenges of power with the exteriority of lines of flights. But this distinction omits some materialisations of ‘phenomena of resistance’. I would like to suggest that three modus operandi under the general name of resistance derive from this view on social flows and forces. The first form of resistance is Deleuze and Guattari’s lines of flights, or resistance ‘A’: as Ronnen Ben-Arie explains following Deleuze and Guattari, ‘there is always an excess of flows and forces that escape the mechanisms of organisation, codification and management’ of power;68 ‘there is always something that flows or flees; that escapes the binary organizations’. 69 It is this excess, produced as external to the operations of systems, that eludes the attempts of power to organise and codify it. In their nature, these movements of life do not retaliate directly against state power – though doubtless they do not dwell in a state of unawareness in relation to it. But they challenge power by speaking and acting outside of the common institutional and normative boundaries. One example of this resistance is the Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions movement (BDS), led by Palestinian civil society since 2005. BDS weakens the dominance of the normative discourse about IsraelPalestine in the international arena because it refuses to engage with the traditional topics and assumptions of that discourse while at the same time it confronts Israel’s violence on a new terrain of action in which Israel finds itself struggling.70 The Palestinian efforts to build economic and social self-sufficiency and independence in the West Bank and Gaza is yet another example of civil resistance that does not face Israeli power directly, and in fact, it is a form of resistance that forces Israel to react.71 Yet, these forms do not exhaust the entirety of forces misaligning with state power; the two remaining forms of resistance gesture their motion as countering forces. Resistance ‘B’: these are displays of resistance compelling majoritarian forces to adjust and at times to redefine themselves, even if this is a countering operation still functioning within the space of interiority of state power. In the Palestinian case, Supreme Court appeals countering unjust laws and policies, is a classic attempt to actualise this type of resistance. Resistance ‘C’: these displays of resistance become actualised in the way Wolfe conceives it, that is, they remain locked in the space of interiority of state power (or other systems) without affecting bodies in any significant way.72 For instance, the main aspects of the actions led by the Zionist left in Israel fall into this category. These operations take the name of resistance in vain. Whether we produce lines of flight or adjacent existential territories to the system (resistance ‘A’), or we force it to deflect (resistance ‘B’), we create dis-alignments in relation to the arrangements of power. It is in this way I suggest listening to Deleuze in L’Abécédaire, seven 28 M. SVIRSKY years after the publication of A Thousand Plateaus, when answering Claire Parnet’s question (‘what do we resist exactly?’): ‘whenever one creates, one resists’. 73 A caveat and a conclusion in regard to this model of resistance are of relevance at this point: we should not see the three modes as each corresponding to a different homogenous and shut-off operation of resistance. That is, the three modes of affection of resistance are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, are to be found always-already intermingling at different and changing intensities and degrees in any action that at prima facie is claimed to challenge power. We rarely find a pure operation of resistance. For instance, elsewhere I have analysed the operations of resistance of the Arab-Jewish bilingual schools in Israel and there I noted that while some aspects of these assemblages invest in weaving new forms of cooperation and lifestyles, these are being partially stifled by the interests of identity and ethnicity.74 The history of the Palestinian armed struggle is replete with lines of flights and reterritorialisations; the undertakings of legendary leader Izz al-Din al-Qassam who in the early 1930s called for armed revolt were ground-breaking both in creating alternative territories of leadership (i.e. rural vs. urban), and in organising farmers displaced by Zionist takeovers of land.75 More generally, Yezid Sayigh’s thesis is that the armed struggle was pivotal in the building a national Palestinian persona, even though it proved many times to carry a too high price for the Palestinian people to bear.76 Therefore, acts of resistance need to be analysed in their complexity to diagnose how and to what extent they submit to, confront or evade power. | Deleuze and Guattari are important for a focus on resistance ‘the general theory of society is a generalized theory of flows’. 59 It may be argued that the settler colonial paradigm does investigate processes, as, for instance, in Wolfe’s three-phased genealogy of settler domination. , settler colonial theory must foster an ethical sensibility towards the coexistence and competition of the myriad forces that aggregatively produce transformation or its arrest, and to translate this sensibility into a new methodology This ontological perspective may promote in settler colonial studies interpretations that acknowledge the multiplicity of the field of forces manufacturing the social. ‘It is in terms not of independence, but of coexistence and competition in a perpetual field of interaction, that we must conceive of exteriority and interiority, war machines of metamorphosis and state apparatuses of identity’. resistance – that etymologically and semantically, in all its various fields of application, speaks of ‘opposition to’ an acknowledged arrangement of organised force In resistance, as Deleuze put it, we resist ‘the temptation against being forced’ in the majoritarian directions of society and popular opinion Given the arrangements of power, I would like to argue that ‘phenomena of resistance’ or dis-alignment may take place both before and after processes of capture, organisation and signification by forces operating in the space of interiority of systems. since desire assembles the social field, power arrangement are both products of these assemblages and that which stamps them out or seal them up. The first form of resistance is Deleuze and Guattari’s lines of flights, or resistance ‘A’: as Ronnen Ben-Arie explains following Deleuze and Guattari, ‘there is always an excess of flows and forces that escape the mechanisms of organisation, codification and management’ of power; It is this excess, produced as external to the operations of systems, that eludes the attempts of power to organise and codify it. But they challenge power by speaking and acting outside of the common institutional and normative boundaries. One example of this resistance is the Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions movement (BDS), led by Palestinian civil society since 2005. BDS weakens the dominance of the normative discourse about IsraelPalestine in the international arena because it refuses to engage with the traditional topics and assumptions of that discourse while at the same time it confronts Israel’s violence on a new terrain of action in which Israel finds itself struggling. these are displays of resistance compelling majoritarian forces to adjust and at times to redefine themselves, even if this is a countering operation still functioning within the space of interiority of state power we create dis-alignments in relation to the arrangements of power. ‘whenever one creates, one resists’ 74 The history of the Palestinian armed struggle is replete with lines of flights and reterritorialisations; the undertakings of legendary leader Izz al-Din al-Qassam who in the early 1930s called for armed revolt were ground-breaking both in creating alternative territories of leadership (i.e. rural vs. urban), and in organising farmers displaced by Zionist takeovers of land.75 Therefore, acts of resistance need to be analysed in their complexity to diagnose how and to what extent they submit to, confront or evade power. |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Many who practice Islam condemn the recent terrorist attacks, and some have begun to advocate with NotInMyName to separate themselves the real Muslims who don't seek violence from the terrorists the fake Muslims who do . While I support those who wish to practice their Muslim faith peacefully, I feel that they cannot revoke another person's religious affiliation nor dismiss the fact that Muslim terrorists are Muslim. I admire that they believe in an ideal Islam free of terrorism, but I disagree that such is the reality of the early 21st century. Simply shifting around semantics will not make it truth. To spin it another way I am human, and I am proud of the accomplishments of my species. I would love to say that humans do not commit murder, but I know that they do. I could say that murderous humans are not real humans, and thus, by definition, no murderers are human, but this would be a disingenuous statement. Murder is not necessary to humanity, though, and perhaps one day no humans will be murderers, but our species has a long way to go before that day. Replace 'human' with 'Muslim', 'humanity' with 'Islam', and 'species' with 'religion', and it seems to me that the situation is the same. Change my view. | Muslim terrorists are Muslim. |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Healthcare
Quote: Two thirds of America supports a single payer system. There are many people devoted to this cause.
Response: Well, we can\'t question your loyalty...that\'s for sure.\nI can question your "facts" which are wrong and I suspect it is because you get them from a biased website. You\'d think people would stop paying attention to biased websites after they never provide a good argument but whatever.\nIn any event, single-payer has roughly a 40% level of support from the last poll I\'ve found on pollingreport.com.\nNow continue your mantra. | -2.8 |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Crowds and Party comes out of this moment of collective de-subjectivation. Occupy Wall Street foundered against a contradiction at its core. The individualism of its democratic, anarchist, and horizontalist ideological currents undermined the collective power the movement was building. Making collective political action dependent on individual choice, the “theology of consensus” fragmented the provisional unity of the crowd back into disempowered singularities.3 The movement’s decline (which began well before Occupiers were evicted) exposes the impasse confronting the Left. The celebration of autonomous individuality prevents us from foregrounding our commonality and organizing ourselves politically. | undermined the collective power the movement was building Making collective political action dependent on individual choice fragmented the provisional unity of the crowd back into disempowered singularities The movement’s decline exposes the impasse confronting the Left celebration of autonomous individuality prevents us from foregrounding our commonality and organizing ourselves politically |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Hanna Unknown : I completely agree that we need more social housing
Proposition: social housing is the obvious place for us to go straight into, like, now, not requiring any more reports, just get on with it | Agreeing |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Devi Sridhar : why is that
Proposition: why is that people in the UK weren't in the best physical condition because of unhealthy diet | Rhetorical Questioning |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: Science is not all knowledge , it does not have the answer for everything that is the religion of scientism that believes that. Science means to know but it does not know everything. It is a wonderful tool not the meaning of life.
Response: Science is the current sum of human knowledge about how the world works.\n | 3.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments phrased as counters. | Argument: Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.
Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.
[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .
Candidate 1: "The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and public services – a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.
[1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf"
Candidate 2: "There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change."
Candidate 3: "Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future."
Candidate 4: "Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]
[1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf"
Candidate 5: "While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated."
Candidate 6: "The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty."
Candidate 7: "The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.
[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 ."
Candidate 8: "The receiving countries would not accept a regulatory body. The current international regulatory bodies such as the WTO and World Bank are essentially run by the rich countries for the benefit of the rich countries and so they accept it. Any body regulating migrants’ rights would, however, be doing the opposite-- benefiting the poorest -- meaning the rich countries would try to prevent the creation of such an organisation.
In the unlikely event that the regulatory body could be created it would face a gargantuan task. How could global migration be monitored and regulated by an international body when even national bodies in rich countries are not able to keep track of all migrants in their nations? Yet the international body would also have to monitor the conditions of migrants in many much poorer countries where the infrastructure currently does not exist."
Candidate 9: "In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. Because they usually come to work, the workplace is even the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants. Similarly it is impossible for the conditions for illegal migrants to be improved; if they are found they will be deported and so there is no need to improve their conditions, although of course they should be well treated while in the process of deportation. Moreover improving minimum conditions would be counterproductive as they would attract more migrants to immigrate illegally knowing that they will get minimum living conditions that may well be considerably better than those that they had in their home country."
Candidate 10: "Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system of taking money from taxpayers in certain countries and giving it to people other countries, this money is then sent abroad and spend abroad resulting in a net loss to the economy. Not all migration is bad, but legislation that would protect the right of immigrants to send money home would solidify this unfair system. Remittances are a short-term fix. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.
The supposed intangible benefit to receiving countries of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause."
| The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and public services – a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.
[1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Tom Regan, an American animal right philosopher. "10 Reasons AGAINST Animal Rights and Their Replies". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either. | Humans must respect animal rights even if animals can't reciprocate |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Nowadays, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats are aware that US foreign policy is not about babies or freedom. A majority of Americans realize that US foreign policy is instead about enriching powerful corporate interests, at the expense of both American workers and the victim nation Iraq, Libya, etc . The typical causus belli for these imperialist invasions is with no exceptions a blatant lie, designed to dupe people into supporting for profit mass murder. I can point to the fake WMDs in Iraq, the fake Gulf of Tonkin attack, the fake Gaddafi rape squads , etc all of which were proven to be lies by the United Nations and other third party organization. Taking all of this into account, I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to join the US military. Why would you volunteer to become part of a corporate mass murder machine which constantly deceives you? Why would you serve those who see you as just a sack of meat, to be used, manipulated, and even sacrificed, all for a larger bank account? I sometimes hear the argument that people join the US military to get free college and other benefits. I don't think that's a good argument. Just because you are a poor brown or black person absolutely does not give you a right to murder even poorer brown or black people for money. If nobody joined the military, the imperialist war profiteers would be unable to keep massacring people in defenseless countries and stealing their resources. Thus, by joining the military, you become an enabler of war crimes and mass murder of civilians. I would have some more sympathy for the military if regular military personnel genuinely believed in the propaganda. But most active military personnel I've interacted with are pretty woke about this they know perfectly well that they're not protecting anyone's freedom . They know they are just serving powerful corporate interests, but they do it anyway. I fail to see how there is any moral justification for this kind of behavior. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing | There is no excuse for joining the US military |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity
Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. When it comes to local crimes a study has found that only larceny(theft) liquor violations increased significantly with a small increase in prostitution.1 But comparing statistics probably does not show the real harm; drug dealers and prostitutes operate near casinos – they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the area. Moreover when a gambler is in debt and wishes to continue gambling due to its addictive nature, he or she often turns to loan sharks as no bank would lend to them. Casinos can therefore be devastating to neighborhoods. It would of course be wrong to assume all gamblers are criminals, although there is an increased possibility that gamblers in debt could turn to criminality through illegal borrowing. These loan sharks themselves usually have links to organized crime, in some cases are actually run by organized crime,2 and use brutal methods to reclaim their money. By banning gambling the opportunities for loan sharks to offer their services is greatly reduced due to a lesser amount of gamblers in debt, as are the opportunities for prostitutes therefore reducing criminal activity in the areas surrounding casinos.
1 Stitt, Grant, et al., ‘Does the Presence of Casinos Increase Crime? An Examination of Casino and Control Communities’, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 2003, pp.253-284, P.279
2 Jordan, Mary, ‘Mafia loan sharks making a killing’, Washington Post, 15 March 2009.
Candidate 1: "Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. Only a small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without problems. The risks of gambling addiction are well known. People can make a conscious choice to start gambling, and are aware of the risks of addiction."
Candidate 2: "Treatment programs can address the problems of those who are addicted, and many casinos offer “Self-Exclusion Programs”, where individuals can effectively “ban” themselves from casinos. This could be the initiative of either the gambler or their family or friends."
Candidate 3: "Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble.
Gambling does also have good effects on all member of society- Gambling is often used to raise money for the state or good causes. Many governments tax gambling. Some even run their own lotteries. Charities use prize draws to raise funds. Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is to pass rules to make it safe and try to get some social good out of it. If the government uses the revenue to help people on lower-incomes, it is not necessarily true that taxes on gambling are regressive and target the poor."
Candidate 4: "Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer pressure. And as children can’t get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway. Stolen credit cards can be used to commit fraud in any number of ways - online gambling is not a specific problem here. It is also in the interest of internet gambling sites to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it."
Candidate 5: "There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. Also, there are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages in life without merit or hard work. There are therefore no grounds for thinking that gambling promotes these undesirable values. The desire for wealth one that stems from society as a whole, not casinos."
Candidate 6: "People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so."
| People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: of those add new body parts except for this one....\nevolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); \n...which isn't even a result of mutation.\nGot anything else?
Response: Nice raising the bar. Fallacies are a creationist\'s best friend. \nYou claimed:"have never shown to add any new structure or even a new part to any existing structure."\nNow you are changing your argument away from structure as new proteins and especially enzymes (which are proteins) don\'t count. | -3.8 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.
Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state [1] .
The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have.
It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system.
[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/> .
Candidate 1: "National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.
States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state.
States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state [1] . The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention.
The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them."
Candidate 2: "Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.
The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war. The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country.
This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table.
A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation1.
1 "Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011."
Candidate 3: "Force does more harm than good.
The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect.
Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare.
Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction.
For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths [1] .
If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them.
[1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html> ."
Candidate 4: "Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world."
Candidate 5: "Interventions can be small and successful.
It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq. [1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions.
Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005.
[1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8682505.stm"
Candidate 6: "Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust [1] . No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention.
[1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. < http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/> ."
Candidate 7: "Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create.
Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it."
Candidate 8: "This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families."
Candidate 9: "Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs.
Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions."
| Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs.
Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions.
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | A key reason for the electoral college was the fear that each state would vote for a local favorite and no national figure would emerge. This was shown to be false in the first competitive election. The electoral college has been outdated from its creation. | The electoral college no longer works as it was intended by the founding fathers. The fact that it no longer serves this purpose suggests that it is no longer necessary. |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Kuala Lumpur — Crude oil prices remain fragile because they are caught between supply and demand uncertainties arising from the political climate in the Middle East and the US-China trade dispute, Vitol Group CEO Russell Hardy said at the Asia Oil & Gas Conference on Monday. | Crude oil prices remain fragile because they are caught between supply and demand uncertainties arising from the political climate in the Middle East and the US-China trade dispute |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: collectivism is the best route. it is a basic all-inclusive so that all get, not just a few.; Topic: We should oppose collectivism | con |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | wikipedia is a vital rescourse which should be subsidised to keep it going. | 0.652921242 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: No, you're branded as a religious zealot when you make arguments that people who don't share your exact beliefs should have their rights taken away.
Response: The problem you are left with lyteboy, is that I didn't try to do that at all. See?\n | 0.833333 |
Detect the argumentative relations between the propositions identified and segmented in an argumentative dialogue. Such relations are: Default Inference (provide a reason to accept another proposition), Default Conflict (provide an incompatible alternative to another proposition), Default Reformulation (rephrase, restate or reformulate another proposition) and No Relation. | Proposition1: until we have the details we can't really have a discussion as the details at the moment are being negotiated
Proposition2: the high quality of farming and animal husbandry is not to be compromised in any trade deal negotiation | No Relation |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: To answer your question, yes I would support abstinence to protect anyone\'s health, not just women\'s. Risks of STIs including AIDS and unwanted pregnancy are obvious examples that can be largely avoided by not having sex.\nCervical cancer is triggered by a virus that a woman is exposed to through sex. Even if she does not contract any STD, there is a high correlation between rates of cervical cancer, HPV(human papolloma virus), and having intercource. Cervical cancer almost never occurs in virgins, and there is a high rate of occurrence in women who have had multiple sex partners.\nAbstinent women also have lower rates of urinary tract infections and vaginitis. Those can be caused by skin being dragged into the vagina inadvertently during intercourse, and the penis has bacteria on it just like all skin.\nTeenage girls also would obviously have higher levels of academic achievement if they are abstinent. Less depression and emotional turmoil due to relationship problems if they are abstinent, as well as less domestic or partner abuse.\nHowever, I don\'t believe that advocating abstinence only is a smart way of approaching a problem. Obviously very few people are abstinent all of their lives; intercourse is a normal part of a healthy lifestyle. Preaching abstinence-until-marriage is also an unreachable goal and means nothing to same-sex couples. Furthermore, there is little scientific evidence that shows that abstinence only education works. Research demonstrates that comprehensive sex education, including abstinence and contraception, is the most effective, according to well-respected groups including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Institute of Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association. All of these groups reject abstinence only programs in favor of comprehensive sex education.\nThe Institute of Medicine recommends "Congress, as well as other federal, state and local policymakers, eliminate the requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education and that states and local school districts implement and continue to support age-appropriate comprehensive sex education." (No Time to Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention, Institute of Medicine)
Response: "Intercourse is a normal part of a healthy lifestyle" for everyone or for those who are married? | 1.2 |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "there are also a significant number of people who are very successful in their fields without going to university", argumentative component 2: "Take for instance those who start their own business" | Yes |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: autonomous cars are a step too far in automation. to rely on automation on the roads with so many unpredictable events that could take place is taking it too far.; Topic: We should stop the development of autonomous cars | pro |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | space exploration is a good adventure. our planet is in a future risk of extinct and we should best prepare our refuge in space exploration | Space exploration is necessary for the future survival of humanity |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
This article attempts to assess the bibliographic status of Babesia parasites with the declared objective of identifying research priorities in order to achieve effective prevention and control of babesiosis.
The authors have produced publication data from various sources showing trends over the years and also by citation, author, institute and country.
Unfortunately the article has major deficiencies.
The most obvious of these is that the human and animal versions of the disease have been conflated so that the data are more or less meaningless.
The economic impact, research priorities and research constraints are very different in veterinary compared with medical babesiosis.
In fact it is possible to argue that even the parasites are different, since the vast majority of human cases are caused by a parasite ( Babesia microti ) that is only distantly related to those prevalent in veterinary babesiosis ( Babesia sensu stricto), and there are differences in their biology such as presence or absence of transovarial transmission, sensitivity to antibabesials, availability of in vitro cultures etc.
Additionally, it is difficult to see the point of counting numbers of articles published by different countries, authors, institutions etc.
Cross comparison of these data is invidious since different interests and time scales are involved.
Such data may tell the reader something about where there has been sufficient interest for research funding but nothing about the nature of the research, which is necessary to identify areas of neglect.
It would have been much more useful to break the data down by topic.
For example, how many articles are in the area of pure immunological research, usually involving rodents, how many address therapeutic issues, how many vaccination, how many epidemiology etc.
Only then would it be possible to see where the gaps are, particularly in relation to practical measures, particularly if accompanied by analytical comments.
The superficial approach of this article certainly does not, especially when there has been no attempt to explain the trends presented in the figures.
The authors have identified some research areas that require more attention, for example blood transfusion infection in the USA, development of vaccines (presumably molecular), development of new antibabesials, but have not provided the necessary context or evidence for these conclusions.
Some important issues that the authors seem to have ignored completely, include the development and successful use of live vaccines for cattle babesiosis over a long period of time, the prodigious, but failed efforts, to produce molecular vaccines against cattle babesiosis (which indicates the very great difficulty involved in the development of vaccines for human use), the change in direction and emphasis of babesiosis research in general with the discovery of B. microti in the US, and epidemiological issues such as the extension of the geographical range of infections, although briefly touched on in relation to the UK, for reasons that are not clear.
The references make little mention of established authorities in the topic and there are at least five instances of self-citation.
Finally there are many examples of poor sentence construction (e.g. the last part of the last sentence in the abstract, inaccurate statements (e.g. the first sentence in the Introduction and the first sentence in the second paragraph), unnecessary sentences (e.g. the third sentence in the second paragraph) etc.
There are more of all these in the Discussion.
Overall, the impression gained is that the authors have made use of readily available metrics on the internet, to present data that appear to have no useful meaning and have not attempted to analyze the data to achieve their stated objectives. | Structure
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Other
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Todo
Todo
Other
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Weakness |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments phrased as counters. | Argument: Jerusalem belongs to Israel
Jerusalem became a city in 1010 B.C.E. when King David defeated the Jebusites. King David made that city his seat of government. In fact, King David loved Jerusalem that he brought the sacred Ark of the Covenant into that city and stripped the so-called twelve tribes of Israel of some of their spiritual and administrative functions. The Torah is the History of Israel. Jerusalem historically was created and founded by an Israeli and therefore remains the heritage of all Israelis forever, as it is irrevocably bound up not only in their history and culture but also in the Jewish religion.(19)
Moreover, Israel has fought for East Jerusalem and so has no reason it should give it up. Chris Mitchell argued in 2008: "Despite any public warnings, the private negotiations continue for the November summit...In the midst of these plans, some see an irony of history...This year, Israel celebrated the 40th anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem...The battle 40 years ago during the 1967 Six Day War reunited a divided city between Jordan and Israel. And for the first time in more than 2,000 years, Israel controlled the city of Jerusalem...Some fear that what Israel won on the battlefield could be lost at the negotiating table."(16) Moreover, Israel has not lost its legitimacy to govern East Jerusalem, as it governs it was well as it can and does so democratically. Israel is a democracy and is doing a fair job in keeping the city open to all three main monotheistic religions. Despite the Inquisition which ruined the Jews and the city, Christians today have been welcomed to the city and their holy places have been given both respect and honour by the State of Israel. Even Muslims have been given the right to maintain their Dome of the Rock - or the Al-Aksa Mosque. There is no reason why this fair religious arrangement should be changed. Even Rome, the seat of the Catholicism has accepted and appreciated the manner by which Israel is keeping Jerusalem free for all religions.(2)
It is for such reasons that a 2011 poll showed that 35% of the inhabitants of East Jerusalem prefer Israeli citizenship, 30% prefer Palestinian citizenship, and 30% didn't know or preferred not to answer. This poll, conducted in all of East Jerusalem's 19 Arab neighbourhoods, shows that Palestinians are mostly satisfied with their present conditions. Their Israeli identity cards entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections, though they can still vote in municipal elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) Israel offers the opportunity for Palestinians to become representatives of their local communities, but that Palestinians reject this opportunity out of fear of being seen as sympathizing with the enemy. They shirk the opportunity to govern themselves and inflame tensions with Israel. They are, therefore, largely responsible for the poor state of East Jerusalem. Israel should not be held solely responsible.(5) Therefore Israel has a superior claim to all of Jerusalem than the Palestinians do to East Jerusalem, and so the city should not be divided.
Candidate 1: "Israel has a better historical, moral and demographic claim to an undivided Jerusalem as its capitol than the Palestinians have a claim to East Jerusalem. This is both because Israel's historical claim is older, and indeed original, but also because Israel does govern all Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, both fairly and democratically. Moreover, the idea that Jerusalem could be is not practical. If all Jerusalem becomes the capital of both Israel and Palestine, this would create all sorts of potential problems. If it was shared for example, would a baby born in a shared Jerusalem’s civic nationality be Israeli or Palestinian? And if an act is committed in Jerusalem which one nation's government recognises as a crime but the other doesn't, who decides what should be done? Different countries sharing a disputed territory but not dividing it is very illogical, even more so if that territory is the capital of both. Imagine what would have happened if the UK, France, and the USA decided to share Berlin with the USSR instead of dividing it!"
Candidate 2: "Dividing Jerusalem will not alienate Jews from their heritage. Dennis Ross writes in the book "the Missing Peace", that it is a myth: "that all of Jerusalem, including the exclusively Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, must remain Israeli lest the division of East Jerusalem rob Israel of its link to its Jewish heritage."(22) Furthermore, splitting Jerusalem will establish needed peace for economic growth. Without peace, it is impossible for Jerusalem to thrive economically as it should. If splitting Jerusalem is the best way to establish peace, then it is also the best way to stimulate economic growth. Finally, even if it would be damaging to Israeli society or culture to lose East Jerusalem, the fact that Israel illegitimately acquired it in a war means that this is a burden the Israelis should bear, instead of forcing the harm on the Palestinians."
Candidate 3: "The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour. ” added Rabbo.(18) Moreover, Jerusalem has been psychologically and religiously divided since 1967. The walls may be invisible, but they are high and thick. Many Israelis never go to the Arab neighbourhoods or the Old City, because they know, even though Israel controls them, they are not welcome. Many Arabs don't go to the Jewish sections, because they too know they are not welcome. And tens of thousands of secular Israelis have fled Jerusalem for Tel Aviv, because they do not feel comfortable in a city dominated by the ultra-Orthodox.(1) Only formalizing these divisions can end the conflict."
Candidate 4: "While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, particularly the Muslim populations, also built their own religious monuments and sights there, most notably the Dome of the Rock (the site of the Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven is Islamic teachings). Arguing this ignores the many years of control that followed the founding of Jerusalem. It ignores centuries of cultural and religious heritage that subsequent, and more contemporary, populations have developed in Jerusalem, and it ignores the equally valid claims the Palestinians groups have to Jerusalem. While it would clearly be unfair to give the capitol entirely to the Palestinians, it must also be recognized that their claim must be recognized as having equal legitimacy as Israel's. If Israel claims it deserves the city because of history and religious significance, then the Palestinians can say the same thing right back.(19)"
Candidate 5: "The 1947 Arab invasion invalidated the "international" status of Jerusalem. The Arab non-acceptance of Resolution 181 and invasion of Israel immediately upon its declaration of statehood essentially reneged the resolution and the creation of an Arab state at the time.(15) Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian East Jerusalem would probably do."
Candidate 6: "Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem necessarily want to be the inhabitants of the capitol of a new Palestinian state rather than inhabitants of Israel. An opinion poll of residents of all 19 Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem conducted in 2011 showed opposition to a transfer of control to the Palestinian Authority. 40% said that they would move to Israel if their neighbourhood was transferred to the Palestinian Authority, and 39% believed most of their neighbour’s preferred Israeli citizenship. On the other hand only 29% would move to a Palestinian neighbourhood if theirs remained in Israel, and 31% estimated that most of their neighbours preferred Palestinian citizenship. 35% prefer Israeli citizenship compared to 30% preferring Palestinian citizenship, with 30% not knowing or not answering. Residents therefore seem to be satisfied with their current situation of having Israeli identity cards which entitle them to all the rights of Israeli citizens except the right to vote in national elections. They are also all entitled to citizenship upon request, in which case they may vote in national elections.(6) This means that sharing Jerusalem will not be a simple solution and that the Palestinians can come to trust the Israeli government and its security services."
| While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, particularly the Muslim populations, also built their own religious monuments and sights there, most notably the Dome of the Rock (the site of the Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven is Islamic teachings). Arguing this ignores the many years of control that followed the founding of Jerusalem. It ignores centuries of cultural and religious heritage that subsequent, and more contemporary, populations have developed in Jerusalem, and it ignores the equally valid claims the Palestinians groups have to Jerusalem. While it would clearly be unfair to give the capitol entirely to the Palestinians, it must also be recognized that their claim must be recognized as having equal legitimacy as Israel's. If Israel claims it deserves the city because of history and religious significance, then the Palestinians can say the same thing right back.(19)
|
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Loss leaders are an inexpensive option available to less well-off customers.
The use of heavily discounted loss-leaders is good for shoppers, especially low-income consumers, who are most appreciative of a bargain that will help them stretch their limited budget. Customers are not stupid but instead canny consumers who are well able to see through the marketing ploys of the big retailers. Often price-conscious shoppers will stock up on the most heavily discounted items, but then go elsewhere for the rest of their shop. On the other hand, attempts in countries like France to regulate retailers have just resulted in protection for the existing firms that dominate the marketplace, and in a lack of competition, which drives up the cost of the weekly groceries for everyone. The same items can cost 30% more in France, where loss leading is banned, than in Germany where it is not and discount stores flourish1. Prohibiting this strategy will hurt consumers. 1: Economist, "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition," May 15, 2008.
Candidate 1: "The use of loss leaders allows greater competition in the retail sector. It helps to drive the overall level of prices down by allowing much greater variation in pricing than would be possible if all goods had to be offered at cost price plus a small profit margin. Loss leaders also allow new entrants to make an immediate impact upon a mature marketplace dominated by a small number of entrenched incumbents, and so they are a valuable tool in maintaining price competition over the long term."
Candidate 2: "Banning loss leaders protects consumers from predatory marketing tactics.
Loss leader strategies exploit consumers by providing partial, misleading information. Giant retailers are not charities; they do not offer heavily discounted goods in order to help the poor. Instead they have calculated that they can attract price-conscious shoppers in with headline deals on a few loss-leading basics, and then persuade them to pay over the odds on a wider range of goods with big profit margins. In this way, loss leaders are a con trick on consumers who are bewildered by deliberately confusing marketing–an onslaught of advertising and ever-changing promotions to the point that they are unable to compare the prices of rival firms and make a rational choice about where to shop. In their paper, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey show how retailers use loss leaders to trick consumers by giving them incomplete information.1 And in the long term, by driving out smaller retailers and reducing competition in the retail sector, the practice can drive up the overall cost of essentials for everyone.
1 Zhijun Chen and Patrick Rey, “Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice,” Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI Working Paper #658)"
Candidate 3: "The government should be able to stop large retailers from exploiting consumers and producers. There is no doubt that retailers have a reason for selling items below market value, but they are only able to profit from such an illogical strategy by exploiting consumers and producers. They trick consumers into buying more expensive items and they force producers who have minimal leverage to lower the wholesale price in order to take the loss leader price into account."
Candidate 4: "The use of loss leaders can have damaging social effects.
Typically it is less healthy products that are heavily discounted, such as alcohol and fatty, sugary and salty processed food. Heavily processed food should cost more than fresh food, but supermarkets don't use fresh fruit or vegetables as loss leaders. The practice tends to distort the shopping behaviour of many of the poorest in society, pushing them into poor diets that lead to obesity, bad dental health and poor nutrition. Banning the practice would make it easier to encourage healthier diets and lifestyles. Selling alcohol below cost price leads to large social harms caused by alcoholism and binge-drinking. The use of alcohol as a loss leader has already been identified as a problem in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—the two companies that own all of the major supermarket chains in the country—agreed not to use alcohol as a loss leader.1 Of course companies in most countries would not agree to such a promise without being prohibited by law, and even New Zealand should go a step further by prohibiting all loss leaders, as alcohol is not the only good that can cause social harm when it is artificially inexpensive.
1 Robert Smith, “Lack of loss-leader sales good news for brand conscious wine industry,”National Business Review (New Zealand), June 19, 2009"
Candidate 5: "Banning loss leaders will interfere in the market, causing a net economic loss for society.
By requiring retailers to sell items at least at cost level, the government is creating an artificial price floor, which will cause prices to rise and create a net loss for society. Basic economics explains that artificial price floors upset the free market, costing a net economic loss for society, which will eventually be paid by all sectors involved.
The harm that prohibiting loss leaders causes to prices is well documented. According to a study by the French newspaper La Tribune, a basket of identical items costs 30% more in France than it does in Germany, partly because of the ban on loss leaders1. In fact, this is the very reason why Ireland repealed its loss leaders ban. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment said at the time, "The single most important reason for getting rid of the [law] is that it has kept prices of groceries in Ireland at an artificially high level." Indeed, a study published in the British Food Journal concluded that the Irish law had caused prices to rise, and a separate study came to the same conclusion regarding France's loss leader prohibition. More generally, a report from the American Anti-Trust Institute shows that throughout history, such price laws have typically raised prices to consumers. 1 Economist . "Purchasing-power disparity: French shoppers want lower prices, but not more competition." May 15, 2008."
Candidate 6: "Selling at a loss is a practical way of shifting products that have failed to sell.
Retailers find themselves all the time with stock that they need to unload, that nobody is buying. This is especially a concern with items that have a sell-by date after which they may not be sold and so become worthless. In such a situation, selling below cost price is economically rational, as it means that the retailer realises some money on their stock rather than none at all. Visit any open-air market at 3.00 p.m. and you will see traders slashing the prices of unsold perishable goods for just this reason. If a retailer is going to sell an item below price level, it might as well use that item as a marketing device. Can you imagine the same market trader slashing his prices, but not shouting them to passersby? Sometimes retailers need to sell items below the price level, and they should be allowed to market them cleverly in order to make up for some of the loss in revenue."
Candidate 7: "The use of loss leaders in marketing campaigns can benefit both retailers and producers. Below-cost price offers are typically used at the introduction of new products in order to encourage consumers to try something for the first time. Whether it is a new vegetable or cheese, a different breakfast cereal or an improved type of soap powder, it is in the interest of farmers and manufacturers to build consumer awareness and market share quickly. In the long run, if consumers like the new product, prices will rise and both producers and retailers will profit from it, so it is quite reasonable that producers are asked to share in the costs of launching it at a discount."
Candidate 8: "If retailers need to unload an item, it is totally within their rights to do that, as long as they don't use that item to trick consumers into buying more expensive items. Selling off goods at a low price, when not planned, would also not harm producers because it would not be a case of "retail price management (RPM)," in which producers agree to sell the product for less to the retailer."
Candidate 9: "Banning loss leaders would help suppliers
The practice of loss leaders is bad for suppliers. Farmers and manufacturers are often forced by the dominant retail giants to participate in discount schemes, sharing the losses at the dictate of the retailer. If they refuse they will be dropped by the retailer and cut off from the marketplace. The American Antitrust Institute has concluded that these "Resale price maintenance (RPM)" agreements—which are agreed upon because retailers have all of the leverage—are usually illegal.1 Prohibiting loss leaders will prevent this abuse of market dominance by the big retail companies and ensure a fair deal for our farmers.
1 John B. Kirkwood, Albert Foer, and Richard Burnell, “The American Antitrust Institute On the European Commission’s Proposed Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines on Vertical Restraints,” American Antitrust Institute, September 27, 2009, page 5-6."
Candidate 10: "The government has no right to tell business what it should charge for its goods.
It should be up to business what it charges for its goods; if it decides to charge less than the cost price, it must have a market-based reason to do so, and it is not the place of government to intervene. It is well-known that consumers focus on the prices of a few staple goods, such as bread, milk, baked beans, etc. So it is rational for retailers with high fixed costs (in wages, rents, power etc.) to set the prices for these key products very low, and even make a loss on selling them, because it will entice more shoppers into their stores. These consumers will also buy other products on which the store does make a profit, and overall sales volumes and profits will rise."
Candidate 11: "There is a good and a bad side to loss leaders for consumers, but prohibiting the practice will always be worse. The obvious benefit to consumers of loss leaders is that they are inexpensive goods to buy. While it is possible that some people will then buy more expensive products because they have entered the store, every item has a price tag, so the customer is always aware of his decision, which means this is not a predatory practice.
Banning loss leaders, on the other hand, is catastrophic for consumers, as it will always result in prices rising. When announcing the repeal of Ireland's loss leaders prohibition, Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment Micheál Martin said, “Very simply, the [law] acted against the interests of consumers for the past 18 years.”1 Loss leaders have positive and negative effects on consumers, but a ban is all bad.
1 Ireland Business News, “Groceries Order abolition.”"
Candidate 12: "Loss leaders do not help lower-income customers because they are aimed at people who will buy a lot of expensive goods at the store. Patrick DeGraba of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argues that, when retailers act strategically, loss leaders are aimed at highly profitable customers1. Retailers have no interest in targeting less well-off consumers, because they won't then spend a lot of money in the store. Therefore, they are more likely to offer a high-quality item below its true cost; this will still be too expensive for many people, though. For example, stores will offer discounts on high-quality turkeys at Thanksgiving, because people who buy them are likely to buy a lot of food. Loss leaders may provide discounts for some consumers, but prohibiting the strategy would not hurt lower-income customers. 1: Patrick DeGraba, "Volume Discounts, Loss Leaders, and Competition for More Profitable Customers," Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics (Working Paper 260), 2003."
Candidate 13: "It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing."
| Loss leaders do not help lower-income customers because they are aimed at people who will buy a lot of expensive goods at the store. Patrick DeGraba of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission argues that, when retailers act strategically, loss leaders are aimed at highly profitable customers1. Retailers have no interest in targeting less well-off consumers, because they won't then spend a lot of money in the store. Therefore, they are more likely to offer a high-quality item below its true cost; this will still be too expensive for many people, though. For example, stores will offer discounts on high-quality turkeys at Thanksgiving, because people who buy them are likely to buy a lot of food. Loss leaders may provide discounts for some consumers, but prohibiting the strategy would not hurt lower-income customers. 1: Patrick DeGraba, "Volume Discounts, Loss Leaders, and Competition for More Profitable Customers," Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics (Working Paper 260), 2003.
|
Detect the argumentative relations between the propositions identified and segmented in an argumentative dialogue. Such relations are: Default Inference (provide a reason to accept another proposition), Default Conflict (provide an incompatible alternative to another proposition), Default Reformulation (rephrase, restate or reformulate another proposition) and No Relation. | Proposition1: Anas Sarwar views the long-term future of oil and gas workers in xxx way
Proposition2: pushing power and resource out from our parliament into the different parts of Scotland is what Anas Sarwar wants to make in terms of his manifesto | Default Conflict |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: http://www.imagequest3d.com/cgi-bin/...c&tt=&bool=and\nHow did the anglerfishes evolve their rods and lures?...and why do they need such big teeth?
Response: I\'ll address the later question. They may not "need" teeth that big, I couldn\'t say. Just because a creature has a feature doesn\'t mean its necessary or useful. While evolution does select for useful traits and against harmful traits, that doesn\'t mean that a trait won\'t develop that is simply odd. As long as it isn\'t particularly negative there\'s no reason to assume it will go away, and so sometimes you get traits that aren\'t "useful", they\'re simply not harmful. Those teeth could be such a case. | 1.5 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The author presents a R based toolset for the analysis of ChIP-seq data in a GUI framework.
The construction of R based ChIP-seq analysis pipelines affords the potential for the use of wide range of tools from R and Bioconductor libraries while offering a low dependency piece of software.
ChIPdig uses QuasR, a wrapper for Bowtie, for the alignment of ChIP-seq data from a BSGenome object.
The Rbowtie2 and Rsubread packages are now both available on Windows, Mac and Linux systems and should be considered alongside Bowtie.
I believe they would offer significant speed and memory usage improvements over QuasR. Although these do not accept BSGenome objects, ChIPdig could easily generate the FASTA from these packages for use with indexing steps of both packages.
Blacklisted regions should be considered in this tool as they have been shown to have strong effects on the QC, fragment length estimation and between sample normalisation.
Inclusion of methods of blacklist filtering from known sources (such as Encode) or in software derived blacklists (using GreyListChIP) should be performed.
The output of BedGraph instead of BigWigs may cause some problems for users when working with larger genomes such as human or mouse.
BigWigs may not be able to be exported on Windows systems but users of Mac or linux should have this option available to them to make this feature worthwhile.
Peak calling is performed with BayesPeak.
It is unclear how this performs on the different types of epigenetic marks used in this study.
Some more options for peak calling could be included here to allow finer control of the stitching of peaks into larger peaks.
A simple bin based peak calling approach such as implemented in the CSAW user guide would be useful here.
How the identification of replicated peaks is not clear in text and could be expanded.
The example differential enrichment analysis compare H3k4me3 and H3K36me3 signals directly.
This is a strange example as most differential ChIP-seq analysis is performed within the same antibody.
An example comparing the change in one histone mark over different conditions/treatment/tissue types would be a more useful and relevant comparison.
This differential enrichment example does highlight a potential pitfall with this approach where the majority of sites change.
The user should be warned in these circumstances as conclusions are likely to be invalid.
Alternative normalisations such as to total mapped reads in peaks or total mapped reads to genome could be provided as options (as in Diffbind). | Structure
Recap
Recap
Recap
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Other
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Todo |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Brandon Lewis : the tier system is about looking at what is happening around the country
Proposition: the tier system is about looking at what is happening around the country | Default Illocuting |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:
A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.
1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.
Candidate 1: "People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states."
Candidate 2: "Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters."
Candidate 3: "If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process."
Candidate 4: "A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public."
| A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public.
|
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | naturopathy is pseudoscience, there is no real evidence that it helps anyone | 0.905545183 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: Abortion isn't a legal crime. How ever, in all other ways, it certainly is a crime.\nI think the moderator should move this to abortion discussion.
Response: If it's not illegal*, it's not a crime, by definition. Can we stipulate that while it is not illegal in most countries under most circumstances, it is indeed immoral? \n*Or the president does it. ;) | 0.142857 |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | China has also embarked on rapid military modernization and enhancing its long-range power projection capabilities. It is building railway networks connecting Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Beijing is particularly interested in a high-speed rail that plays a key military transport and logistics role in China’s efforts to project power across Eurasia. The military has already used the Shanghai-Nanjing express railway to transport troops at speeds of up to 350 km per hour, touting the practice of employing these dual-use (both commercial and military applications) strategic railways as an ideal way to project personnel and light equipment in “military operations other than war” (MOOTW) to protect its interests abroad.[31] The People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s General Logistics Department (GLD) is actively participating in the design and planning of China’s high-speed railway, with military requirements becoming part of the development process. Indeed, the GLD is looking to implement rapid mobilization and deployment of troops via high-speed rails once they are completed across Eurasia.[32] Dubbed the “Iron Silk Road”, in November 2010, China signed agreements with Iran to connect railways through Central Asia, as well as onto Turkey and Europe.[33] It recently inked deals to build Israel’s high-speed railway linking the ports of Ashdod and Eilat, with eventual connections to Jordan’s Aqaba Port.[34] In its recent meeting with Egypt’s Mursi, China also inked deals to build a high-speed railway linking Cairo, Alexandria, Luxor, and Hurghada,[35] with a longer-term view to eventually connect Africa with the Middle East via Egypt. As China’s overseas interests expand in tandem with China’s rise in power, the Middle Kingdom will become more assertive in using its military to protect its burgeoning assets abroad. The Chinese military has also changed its strategy from “coastal defense” to “far sea defense,” seeking to project naval power well beyond its coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific. Admiral Liu Huaqing, who modernized China’s navy as its commander from 1982-1988, defined the Sino-centric concept of the Near Sea, as well as the Middle and Far Seas as depicted in the Map 5 below.[36] In an interview with Xinhua in 2010, Rear Adm. Zhang Huachen, deputy commander of the East Sea Fleet, said, “With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense.” He added, “With the expansion of the country’s economic interests, the navy wants to better protect the country’s transportation routes and the safety of our major sea lanes.”[37] Yin Zhuo, a retired PLAN rear admiral, stated in an interview with People’s Daily Online that the PLAN was tasked with two primary missions: the preservation of China’s maritime security (including territorial integrity) and the protection of China’s burgeoning and far-flung maritime economic interests.[38] Indeed, Chinese naval vessels have embarked on active diplomacy in the far seas. It conducts regular port calls and “shows of flags” in the Gulf of Aden–where it conducts anti-piracy missions–as well as in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea–where China has acquired various seaports in the littorals by helping to bail out the Eurozone. In July and August of 2012, Chinese warships passed through the Suez Canal and entered the Mediterranean Sea at the same time Russia dispatched its naval flotilla to Tartus in Syria. A website called Turkish Navy tracked all three ships–the Qingdao destroyer, Yantai frigate, and the Weishan Hu supply ship. However, Weishan Hu disappeared for a couple of days–with some speculating it was possibly replenishing Russian warships in support of the Asad regime.[39] Weishan Hu can carry 10,500 tons of fuel, 250 tons of water, and 680 tons of ammunition.[40] Naval vessels can be at sea and resupply one another undetected. Knowing Russian ships were also active in the Gulf of Aden, some posit that there is a possibility China and Russia were conducting seaborne supply swaps there, with Russia later transporting supplies to Tartus, Syria.[41] This would not be the first time China has claimed neutrality while covertly helping a dictator with whom it has lucrative contracts. In September 2011, it was revealed that China’s state-controlled arms manufacturers offered to sell $200 million of arms to Qadhafi via Algeria and South Africa. This included rocket launchers, anti-tank missiles, and QW-18–a surface-to-air missile similar to a U.S. Stinger and capable of bringing down NATO aircrafts. This was in violation of the UN arms embargo, which China supported.[42] Yet others observe the significance of the Chinese navy’s “show of flags” as deterrence against Western military intervention in Syria. Writing in The Diplomat, J. Michael Cole argued that “for the first time since China’s re-emergence as a power to be reckoned with, Western powers are being confronted with scenarios involving the risks of clashes with Chinese military forces outside the Asian giant’s backyard.”[43] He further argued that there may be a possibility whereby the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) may not directly take part in hostilities, but PLAN or Russian ships could attempt to create a line at sea to prevent Western ships from approaching Syria to launch military operations against it, or to prevent an embargo. In the Chinese Communist controlled mouthpiece the Global Times, an August 2012 article asserted that the Mediterranean needed to become accustomed to China’s naval presence.[44] By showing its flag west of the Suez, China is signaling its interest as a trading nation in accessing sea-lanes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Bosporus, and Gibraltar.[45] In another paper from the National University of Singapore, Geoff Wade argued that China’s maritime strategy was not about establishing military bases and territorial control on foreign soil, but rather using maritime dominance and gunboat diplomacy to establish economic and political control over ports and shipping lanes.[46] That is, by using a maritime power’s dominant presence to control economic lifelines of nodal points, networks, ports, and trade routes, China can thus control trade and wield great power. Wade coins this “proto-maritime colonialism,” whereby a dominant maritime power takes control of main port polities along major East-West maritime trade networks as well as the seas in between, thus gaining economic and political benefits. This is less costly than establishing forward operating bases for the military, which smacks of occupation and colonialism in some host countries. As such, China has steadily acquired controlling stakes or equities in the main seaports of container traffic along the rimland of the Eurasia continent, which has come to be known as China’s “string of pearls” naval strategy. Around the Mediterranean, China is acquiring stakes in shipping and logistics companies and is expanding ports in Greece (Piraeus Port), France (Port of Marseille Fosx 4XL container terminal), Spain (El Prat pier in the Barcelona Port), as well as rail, air terminals, and fiber optic networks in Portugal (Huawei and Portugal Telecom) and Italy (air terminal north of Rome). In the Eastern Mediterranean, the China Harbor Engineering Company is expanding Lebanon’s Tripoli port. In Israel, it is cooperating with Ashdod port authorities and building a light rail from Tel Aviv to Eilat. It is also connecting the Eilat port to the Ashdod and Haifa ports in Israel. In Egypt, China’s shipping company COSCO has a 20 percent share in the Danish Maersk container port in Port Said. At the same time, China is attempting to recoup and renegotiate infrastructure contracts elsewhere in North Africa following the Arab Spring. Across the Suez Canal in the Red Sea, China is already enlarging Port Sudan, which gives China the ability to deliver maritime shipments (whether civilian or military) to Sudan, East Africa, and the Horn of Africa region. Near the Persian Gulf in February 2013, China took operational control of Pakistan’s Gwadar Port from Singapore’s PSA International, which it also built.[47] However, China still faces obstacles in challenging the U.S. military and realizing its goal as a dominant maritime power. The Mediterranean is still dominated by NATO and the U.S. 6th Fleet, and the Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf by U.S. 5th Fleet. In the near-term, China’s navy will show its presence as a new kid on the block in the far seas, but will be unable to challenge U.S. naval pre-eminence. However, over the longer term, as the United States and NATO cut back on their defense budgets due to economic woes while China continues to increase its spending and military modernization, the U.S. naval position may begin to erode as China becomes a formidable competitor for influence in power projection in this region. CHINA’S NEW PROACTIVE DIPLOMACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST On August 14, 2012, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun launched the inaugural round of the U.S.-China Middle East Dialogue in Beijing. The initiative was driven by China’s increasing activities and assertiveness in the Middle East.[48] China’s shift in policy away from its traditional “non-intervention” stance toward this region is driven by a combination of domestic, regional, and international factors. Domestic Driver: Shift in China’s Perception of the Middle East As stated earlier, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime survival is tied to continual economic growth and delivering improving living standards to the Chinese people. Its “go out” strategy to acquire energy assets abroad since 1993 has driven China to have a more assertive and interventionist stance in its approach to the Middle East. As its overseas interests continue to expand with China’s rise, the Chinese government has found that it can no longer strictly adhere to its “non-intervention” stance, but needs to be more proactive diplomatically, politically, and militarily in order to protect its interests. Since the 2003 U.S. intervention in Iraq, China has become more active in pursuing a “counter-encirclement strategy” against perceived U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.[49] Beijing fears that Washington’s Middle East strategy entails advancing the encirclement of China and creating a norm of regime change against undemocratic states, which would implicitly challenge CCP legitimacy at home.[50] In 2004, then Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen blasted U.S. foreign policy in an article published in China Daily. He wrote that the United States has “put forward its ‘Big Middle East’ reform program… [The] U.S. case in Iraq has caused the Muslim world and Arab countries to believe that the super power already regards them as targets for its ambitious ‘democratic reform program.’”[51] According to a 2004 interview with Ambassador Wu Jianmin, a rising star in China’s diplomatic circle, Chinese foreign policy was transforming from “Responsive diplomacy” (Fanying shi waijiao) to “Proactive diplomacy” (Zhudong shi waijiao).[52] In 2005, Jin Liangxiang, research fellow at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, argued that China was experiencing a new activism and that “the age of Chinese passivity in the Middle East is over.”[53] He declared, “If U.S. strategic calculations in the Middle East do not take Chinese interests into account, then they will not reflect reality.”[54] That same year, President Hu Jintao delivered a message to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on the “New Historic Missions” strategy, which underscores the PLA’s role in safeguarding national interest overseas.[55] There is also a rising tide of domestic nationalism, with China’s own historic narrative as a victim in the past “century of humiliation” and that the time has come to reassert the Middle Kingdom’s proper place in the world.[56] This plays well in enhancing the CCP’s standing for domestic consumption, especially in view of the upcoming leadership change in the 18th Party Congress in October 2012, which set the course for China for the next eight years until 2020. Xi-Jinping, the next president to replace Hu Jintao, is a princeling and a Maoist, placing strong focus on the PLA’s role in foreign policy. Hu, on the other hand, was a Dengist who was more focused on economic development. As such, with Xi Jinping at the helm of China’s leadership, he will likely steer China’s foreign policy onto a more active course. Regional Drivers: United States’ Asia Pivot and China’s Fear of Encirclement Chinese leaders and strategists have often lambasted U.S. strategy of encircling and containing a rising China.[57] China views that its eastern flank is already surrounded by anti-Chinese alliances forged by the U.S. defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand, in addition to defense cooperation with Taiwan, Singapore, and Indonesia. With the post September 11 War on Terrorism and subsequent stationing of U.S./NATO troops in Central Asia and Afghanistan, China is now encircled by a U.S. military presence to contain its freedom of action. Air Force colonel Dai Xu, a renowned military strategist, wrote in an article, “China is in a crescent-shaped ring of encirclement. The ring begins in Japan, stretches through nations in the South China Sea to India, and ends in Afghanistan. Washington’s deployment of anti-missile systems around China’s periphery forms a crescent shaped encirclement” (See Map 7). As the United States embarks on its pivot to Asia in order to contain China and it partners with Southeast Asian nations to counter China’s territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea, Beijing is taking counter-encirclement steps. China is doing so by forging partnerships with key pivotal countries with anti-Western sentiments, such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, followed by Egypt. Turkey is especially important given: (1) The combination of its EU/NATO ties with having an Islamist government that is oriented toward the Islamic world; and (2) having one foot in NATO and another foot in the SCO. As such, it is an important partnering pole in the left flank of the Eurasia continent for China to project its influence on and counter-balance the United States and the West. The Chinese have always been wary of Western-sponsored revolutions spreading to Central Asia, because it feared that Xinjiang would follow suit and declare independence from China, just as the Central Asian Republics declared independence from the Soviet Union. Moreover, for many years, the Turkic Uyghurs in Xinjiang enjoyed the protection and sympathetic support of their separatist movement in Turkey. As such, China is seeking Turkey’s cooperation and reciprocity in respecting Xinjiang as China’s territory in exchange for supporting Turkey’s stance on the Kurds in Turkey. The SCO is thus an effective vehicle through which both could cooperate and expand their influence in Central Asia. International Changes: Arab Spring Surprise and Uncertainty in Middle East The Arab Spring caught China by surprise, and it suffered great investment losses. These investment ties involved years of building influence and negotiations with previous regimes. The CCP values stability with authoritarian regimes for its infrastructure projects in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. It also fears the West will encourage pro-Western regime changes that are detrimental to Chinese interests. In addition, by voting for UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) and supporting regime change due to human rights abuses, it opens the door for future Western interventions in China over its own human rights abuses (e.g., Tiannamen Square Massacre, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc.). Libya In the case of Libya, China perceived that by being complicit with the West via its abstention from UNSCR 1973, it directly contributed to the fall of Qadhafi with disappointing payoffs. Domestic nationalists criticized the government for “compromising its principles” and “acquiescing to Western demands,” and in the international arena, neither the West nor the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) showed appreciation for China’s abstention.[58] China lost more than $20 billion worth of investments; had to evacuate 36,000 Chinese nationals from Libya; and when Beijing urged NTC to protect its oil interests, it was shocked and humiliated by the public announcement from the Libyan oil company AGOCO that they “don’t have a problem with Western countries, but may have political issues with Russia and China.”[59] China was unprepared to protect its interests in this scenario. Its perception of gaining nothing while losing everything by acquiescing to the West thus significantly contributed to its subsequent decision to veto the Syrian resolution. Syria China perceived it was tricked by Westerners on UNSCR 1973, which NATO exploited to intervene militarily to oust Qadhafi under the fig leaf of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Beijing has thus taken a harsh stance in Syria via its UNSC veto. Professor Yin Gang, a Middle East expert with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the veto was an effort to stop the UN from interfering in the domestic affairs of another country. Yin explained, “Beijing’s concern is also of Syria becoming another Libya… if the UN can do this in Syria, it will do it again to another country in the future, and that is what Chinese leaders are worried about.”[60] Moreover, Beijing wanted to side with Russia to counterbalance U.S. influence in the region. Professor Xiao Xian, a leading Middle East expert and vice president of the Chinese Association for Middle East Studies, said, “The only explanation for China’s move is that Beijing is seeking closer collaboration with Moscow in order to check and balance the U.S.-led Western alliance’s domination of global affairs.”[61] In Beijing’s cost-benefit analysis, China’s acquiescence to UNSCR 1973, which resulted in Western military intervention, was a complete loss. According to Yan Xuetong, a prominent Chinese strategist, the West and Arab states did not appreciate China’s effort on Libya and chastised it for not participating in the military campaign. Yan argues, “Regardless of how China votes on Syria, the West will always see China as an undemocratic country with a poor human rights record and the Arab states will always side with the West.”[62] Thus China perceives its veto of the Syria resolution as something that does not fundamentally cost Beijing anything. However, it had much to gain by saving Moscow from international isolation–the joint veto was a powerful demonstration of Sino-Russia diplomatic cooperation to maintain a power balance in the Middle East. More importantly, China fears denial of access to energy sources in regions where Western military interventions prop up pro-Western regimes. China is also changing to a more nuanced and sophisticated strategy of hedging its interests with current regimes as well as the opposition. The bitter lesson from its belated and ongoing unstable relationship with the Libyan NTC prompted Beijing to be more proactive in building relations with the Syrian opposition, while simultaneously pursuing a mediation role inside and outside of Syria.[63] As such, in February 2012, China’s Foreign Ministry conducted shuttle diplomacy and dispatched senior delegations to Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority for consultations. It has also become more assertive militarily, sending Chinese warships to the Mediterranean Sea in a “show of flags,” along with Russian naval flotilla presence near Syria. With so many overseas interests at stake, China is no longer strictly adhering to its non-interference stance. Egypt Henry Kissinger said in the Middle East, there could be no war without Egypt and no peace without Syria. Well aware of this, China is thus courting Egypt, the cultural center of the Arab world and a geostrategic pivot state controlling the Suez Canal and in close proximity to the Horn of Africa, to further project its influence in the Middle East and Africa. Sino-Egypt ties date back to the first meeting between Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai during the 1955 inaugural NAM meeting in Bandung, Indonesia. China courted Egypt because it was the most populous Arab country, a center of gravity in the Arab world, and as such backed Egypt’s aspirations to assume a role in representing Africa and the Middle East alongside the five UNSC members.[64] Egypt is also a leading advocate of greater Sino-Arab cooperation under the auspices of the Arab League as well as enhancing ties between China and the Africa Union.[65] China also has vast investments in Egypt’s hydrocarbon industry, as well as construction, telecommunications, and agriculture. Beijing has pursued agreements that enhance China’s direct access to Egyptian port facilities along the Suez Canal through Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa, Ltd, a firm with close ties to the PLA. It has also taken advantage of other economic opportunities in the Suez Canal Zone, further consolidating its “proto-maritime colonialism” stance in controlling and securing influence around the strategic trade and communications choke points across the globe.[66] China and Egypt have also expanded military cooperation. Significantly, in June 2002, a PLAN fleet representing the North China Sea Fleet crossed the Suez Canal and docked in the port city of Alexandria during its first around-the-world voyage.[67] In 2005, China’s PLA front company, National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC), also partnered with Egypt’s A.O.I. Aircraft to jointly produce K-8E flight trainers,[68] thus bringing both countries’ defense industries and militaries into a closer relationship. According to a study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, from 1989-2008, China sold more weapons to Egypt than Sudan and Zimbabwe (its traditional clients) combined, making Egypt China’s biggest weapons market in Africa.[69] The study also observed that U.S. military assistance to Egypt freed up cash for Egypt’s government to then purchase additional Chinese arms. Some analysts are worried that the increased Chinese presence in Egypt, coupled with a Mursi government less loyal to the United States, would give China access to American military technology.[70] By courting Egypt, China has enhanced its regional influence and has gained a better position to check U.S. power in a region of vital strategic significance. It is projecting into the part of the world that was a traditional U.S. sphere of influence, just as it perceives the United States as encroaching on its sphere of influence and core interests in the Western Pacific and Central Asia. Likewise, Egypt is seeking to diversify away from its dependence on the United States for military and economic assistance. Mursi hedged his bets by making China its first visit outside of the Middle East, ahead of the United States. As Saed Lawendy, political expert with the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies said to Xinhua, “The president believes the economy is the fuel oil that moves the international political truck forward, for that reason he headed to China which is the second powerful economy in the world [sic].”[71] IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES IN NEAR FUTURE As U.S. influence begins to wane in the Middle East and pivots, or “rebalances,” toward the Asia Pacific, China is seizing a strategic window of opportunity to fill the growing vacuum and attempting to shape a post-Arab Spring region that is more hospitable for China’s power projection capabilities. A rising power with expanding interests, China will become more proactive in the Middle East and North Africa. Beijing also needs continued market access both for extraction of strategic mineral resources as well as export markets to fuel its ever-expanding war chest. As such, the Chinese navy has now entered “NATO Lake” of the Mediterranean Sea to protect its interests. This is an example of an area outside of the Asia Pacific where there is a risk of a potential military clash between the United States and China. In fact, China’s naval ambitions and aircraft carrier even fuelled fear in Great Britain; in the aftermath of Chinese naval vessels having sailed to the Mediterranean to help evacuate its 36,000 citizens in Libya, a Daily Mail article was entitled “After Beijing sends a frigate to the Med, a leading author poses a chilling question…how long until a Chinese aircraft carrier sails up the Thames?”[72] An Expanding Definition of China’s Core Interests Despite its economic rise, China is not liberalizing. As John Lee from the Hudson Institute argues, the West holds a seductive belief that authoritarian China will be increasingly integrated into a liberal order and will emerge as a defender of such order. However, China is moving in the opposite direction of what a “responsible stakeholder” in a liberal order ought to be doing.[73] Rather, it is wishing to supplant the U.S.-led post-war liberal world order of the “Washington Consensus” with its own “Beijing Consensus,” based on authoritarian rule for economic development.[74] Beijing has its own definition and rule of the international game. It also has its own historic narrative of payback time as it emerges from its “Century of Humiliation,” which dictates their current behavior. Already, the South China Sea is witnessing an emboldened China. In July 2012, China’s State Council approved the establishment of a new national prefecture on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, which is disputed territory between Vietnam and China. China’s Central Military Commission announced that it would deploy a garrison of soldiers to guard the Paracel Islands, announced a new policy of “regular combat-readiness patrols” in the South China Sea, and began offering oil exploration rights in locations recognized by the international community as within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone.[75] Although China established a new military garrison and unilaterally annexed a disputed area, America’s reaction has been muted. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Senator James Webb (D-VA) observed that China’s economic power and its assertive use of its navy and commercial vessels to project influence has changed the dynamics in East Asia. He criticized, “In truth, American vacillations have for years emboldened China.”[76] He added that East Asian allies were “waiting to see whether America will live up to its uncomfortable, but necessary, role as the true guarantor of stability in East Asia, or whether the region will again be dominated by belligerence and intimidation.” Indeed, allies in the Middle East are watching as well. The muted U.S. responses to China’s clashes with Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines in the Western Pacific and U.S. inaction toward North Korea’s sinking of South Korea’s naval vessel Cheonan in 2010, have negative implications for the credibility of the U.S. security umbrella. Israel and Gulf Allies Watching U.S. Strategy in East Asia, East Asian Allies Watching U.S. Strategy in the Middle East In light of the 2010 North Korean menace in East Asia, Israel and the Gulf allies were watching the U.S. reaction to an ally under attack, as they faced their own Iranian menace in West Asia. Emile El-Hokayem, political editor of The National (UAE) and senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), stated at a July 2010 Wilson Center conference that the Gulf states had their own Taiwan issue. The UAE has disputes over three islands with Iran (see Map 9), and Hokayem said the Gulf States looked at Taiwan as a litmus test for a U.S. security guarantee.[77] He observed that the Gulf States saw that North Korea sank the Cheonan and the United States did nothing. He questioned whether the U.S. would protect its Gulf allies if they would get involved in a situation in which Iran sank a vessel. Hokayem said that how the United States treats its East Asian allies has direct relevance for the Gulf States. It is also relevant for Israel, as the Israeli press kept a close watch on events unfolding on the Korean Peninsula, since Iran emulates North Korea’s playbook. “Why a brazen N. Korea is Israel’s concern,” “As Iran watches Korea,” and “S. Korea, N. Korea, Israel and Iran” are samples of press titles at the time.[78] Now, Middle East and East Asian allies are once again watching the U.S. reaction to China’s actions in the South China Sea, as well as Iran’s belligerence against Israel and Gulf allies in the Middle East. Credibility of U.S. Security Guarantee and Allied Reassurance The credibility of the U.S. security guarantee is at a critical crossroads. The U.S. course of action will have long-lasting ramifications for regional security both in the Middle East and in East Asia. If United States fails to reassure its allies, there will be a loss of confidence in U.S. security umbrella. This in turn will lead to an arms race and increased nuclear proliferation that threatens to destabilize both regions. Israel is a litmus test of U.S. credibility as a dependable ally, as allies from both Asia and the Middle East watch. U.S. behavior in the Arab Spring in helping to oust Mubarak is already viewed as a betrayal and abandonment of a steadfast ally. East Asian allies are also losing confidence in view of the muted U.S. responses to North Korea’s menace as well as China’s actions in the region. Both regions are at a nuclear tipping point that will decide to abandon the U.S. security umbrella and embark on a cascade of nuclear proliferation, or retain confidence in the U.S. security guarantee and remain under its nuclear umbrella. In a 2008 Congressional report entitled “Chain Reaction: Avoiding a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East,” the report concluded that if Iran became nuclear, Egypt, Turkey and especially Saudi Arabia would likely go nuclear.[79] Egypt until now had two means of deterrence from the nuclear weapons path: (1) the peace treaty with Israel; and (2) a security partnership with the United States. However, given the new Muslim Brotherhood leadership that threatens to dissolve the peace treaty and security partnership, Egypt may embark on this path. In 2006, members of the Brotherhood advocated a nuclear weapons program. Its spokesman Dr. Hamdi Hassan said that Egyptians “are ready to starve” to obtain a nuclear weapons.[80] Likewise, Turkey under the Islamist AKP leadership is considering Chinese bids to build nuclear reactors, due to its ability to secure financing without requiring guarantees from the Turkish government.[81] As for Saudi Arabia, it lacks confidence in the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In the 1980s, it secretly procured 50 to 60 CSS-2 missiles from China that could fit nuclear warheads, in addition to financing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, disclosed that Saudi officials warned him if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, the Saudis would be compelled to acquire their own deterrent stockpile.[82] In face of China’s actions in the Western Pacific and the inability of the international community to prevent a nuclear North Korea, the risk for an East Asian regional crossover of the nuclear tipping point is much higher. Three U.S. allies have a prior history of clandestine nuclear weapons programs (e.g., Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). In a 2007 CSIS study, the strength of the security alliance was found to be the overriding factor in a state’s choice to seek nuclear weapons.[83] In the case of Taiwan and South Korea, the perception of the decreasing U.S. security commitment has led to a corresponding pursuit of clandestine nuclear programs.[84] In the case of Japan, it considered and rejected the nuclear options four times due to confidence in the U.S. security guarantee: (1) the 1960s due to the 1964 Chinese nuclear test; (2) mid-1970s due to debate on ratifying the NPT; (3) mid-1990s debate on indefinite extension of NPT; and (4) North Korea nuclear crisis when it conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.[85] However, under the Obama administration, the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee has been eroding. The muted U.S. responses in face of Chinese actions, a nuclear North Korea’s threats to East Asia allies, a nuclearizing Iran’s threats towards Israel and Gulf allies, is no longer assuring U.S. allies. As war drums beat in the Middle East, both friends and foes alike are watching–China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, the Gulf, and East Asian allies. Whether the United States chooses to stand with Israel or to let Israel stand alone, will warn others of the credibility of the United States as a guarantor of security and its preponderant power. As Senator Webb penned in the Wall Street Journal, allies are watching to see if the United States will step up to the plate and defend its status as a security guarantor in face of aggression, or will it finally relinquish this title and cede it to the Middle Kingdom to confirm its Sino-centric place in the world.\ | China has also embarked on rapid military modernization and enhancing its long-range power projection capabilities The PLA is actively participating in the design and planning of China’s high-speed railway, with military requirements becoming part of the development process ross Eurasia China signed agreements with Iran to connect railways through Central Asia, as well as onto Turkey and Europe China will become more assertive in using its military to protect its burgeoning assets abroad The Chinese military has also changed its strategy from “coastal defense” to “far sea defense,” seeking to project naval power well beyond its coast With our naval strategy changing now, we are going from coastal defense to far sea defense With the expansion of the country’s economic interests, the navy wants to better protect the country’s transportation routes and the safety of our major sea lanes others observe the significance of the Chinese navy’s “show of flags” as deterrence against Western military intervention in Syria for the first time since China’s re-emergence as a power to be reckoned with, Western powers are being confronted with scenarios involving the risks of clashes with Chinese military forces outside the Asian giant’s backyard the PLAN may not directly take part in hostilities, but PLAN or Russian ships could attempt to create a line at sea to prevent Western ships from approaching Syria to launch military operations against it, or to prevent an embargo. China’s maritime strategy was not about establishing military bases and territorial control on foreign soil, but rather using maritime dominance and gunboat diplomacy to establish economic and political control over ports and shipping lanes by using a maritime power’s dominant presence to control economic lifelines of nodal points, networks, ports, and trade routes, China can thus control trade and wield great power the U.S. military still dominated the Persian Gulf China’s navy will show its presence as a new kid on the block but will be unable to challenge U.S. naval pre-eminence as the United States cut back on their defense budgets due to economic woes while China continues to increase its spending and military modernization the U.S. naval position may begin to erode as China becomes a formidable competitor for influence in power projection in this region Since the intervention in Iraq, China has become more active in pursuing a “counter-encirclement strategy” against perceived U.S. hegemony in the Middle East Beijing fears that Washington’s Middle East strategy entails advancing the encirclement of China and creating a norm of regime change against undemocratic states, which would implicitly challenge CCP legitimacy at home There is also a rising tide of domestic nationalism, with China’s own historic narrative as a victim in the past “century of humiliation” and that the time has come to reassert the Middle Kingdom’s proper place in the world Beijing is taking counter-encirclement steps China is doing so by forging partnerships with key pivotal countries with anti-Western sentiments, such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, followed by Egypt Turkey is an important partnering pole in the left flank of the Eurasia continent for China to project its influence on and counter-balance the United States and the West As U.S. influence begins to wane in the Middle East and pivots, or “rebalances,” toward the Asia Pacific, China is seizing a strategic window of opportunity to fill the growing vacuum and attempting to shape a post-Arab Spring region that is more hospitable for China’s power projection capabilities rising power with expanding interests China will become more proactive in the Middle East and North Africa This is an example of an area outside of the Asia Pacific where there is a risk of a potential military clash between the United States and China China is wishing to supplant the U.S.-led post-war liberal world order of the “Washington Consensus” with its own “Beijing Consensus,” based on authoritarian rule for economic development Beijing has its own definition and rule of the international game The credibility of the U.S. security guarantee is at a critical crossroads. The U.S. course of action will have long-lasting ramifications for regional security both in the Middle East and in East Asia. If United States fails to reassure its allies, there will be a loss of confidence in U.S. security umbrella This in turn will lead to an arms race and increased nuclear proliferation that threatens to destabilize both regions. In face of China’s actions in the Western Pacific and the inability of the international community to prevent a nuclear North Korea, the risk for an East Asian regional crossover of the nuclear tipping point is much higher under the Obama administration, the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee has been eroding As war drums beat in the Middle East, both friends and foes alike are watching–China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, the Gulf, and East Asian allies |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: the is enough money in journalism already, and funds available through subsidies should be redirected towards more worthwhile causes such as healthcare.; Topic: We should subsidize journalism | con |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Abolishing parties would to some extent also wipe away a representative's political track record. This is because their previous actions in office may have been a direct result of their partisanship, rather than their personal convictions. | For some time after abolishing parties, voters would have no way of assessing and trusting individual representatives once free of partisan constraints. This could cause a crash of confidence in the whole system of governance. |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Increased sense of identity with the state increases social solidarity.
Where groups of people do not identify with the state they are less likely to be willing to invest in more generous state services since they do feel that peoples with whom they have no affinity will benefit from them. Conversely, where people feel like the state is mostly composed of people like them, they are more willing to invest in education, healthcare and a welfare state. These things will ultimately significantly improve the lives of the people in each new state and lead to stronger states than the one that exists now. For example the Scandinavian states, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland with their largely homogenous societies are also associated with very high levels of social happiness and generous welfare provision.
Candidate 1: "The region is no longer the powder keg of tension it once was. The independence of Kosovo did not lead to widespread fighting, but only to localised rioting for a period of days or weeks and the Montenegrin secession was entirely peaceful. The awareness of the possibility of escalation of tension will only to serve to make the new states and the international community even more focused on preventing violence and they are thus likely to react accordingly with peacekeepers, international monitors and aid."
Candidate 2: "Where does self-determination end? Do cities or towns have a right to self-determination, what about individuals within the state? Allowing further secessions will just lead to increasingly smaller and less viable states without producing benefits. Nations are invented human constructs with no inherent value. The right to self-determination is limited, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that there were only three circumstances in which external self determination to three circumstances (a) those under colonial domination or foreign occupation; (b) peoples subject to "alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context;" and, possibly, (c) a people "blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally." [1] None of these apply to RS.
In the case of RS there were Bosniaks and Croats who were already in the region and were expelled in the 1990s who in many cases formed a majority in many municipalities in what is now Republika Srpska. Should these smaller groupings have the same right? And if so would individual villages within these municipalities then be able to exercise their own self determination?
[1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., ‘Self-determination of the p[eoples of Quebec under International Law’, J. Transnational Law & Policy, Vol.10 No.1, p.12, http://law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol101/vyver.pdf"
Candidate 3: "Secession will strengthen Nationalism in neighbouring states.
The upsurge in Nationalism would not be limited to just the two parts of Bosnia & Herzegovina, given the ethnic kinship between the Croats and Serbs of Bosnia and those of Croatia and Serbia, but would also in all likelihood lead to renewed nationalism in Serbia, Croatia and other FYRs as happened during the earlier rise of the nationalists before and during the Yugoslav wars [1] . This would jeopardise the progress made within and between these states and damage international cooperation. It would also likely set back the drive towards increased integration, the close cross national feeling and shared culture termed ‘the Yugosphere’ and ultimately being joined together again within the EU.
[1] Pesic, Vesna, ‘Serbian Nationalism and the Origins of the Yugoslav Crisis’, Peaceworks No.8, April 1996, United States Institute of Peace, http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/30963/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/DD98B650-6B39-4FA8-8F02-5296502F4EBA/en/1996_april_pwks8.pdf .26"
Candidate 4: "Whether or not Nations are imaginary, they are seen as being important and form a key part of individual’s identity. Nationalism does not have to lead to a sense of superiority, nations can be proud of their identity without being disrespectful of other nation’s culture and history."
Candidate 5: "The present state structure does not work.
The existing state structure does not work, because it requires agreement between the representatives of RS and the FBH, Given the fundamentally divergent aims and opinions of the two sides compromise is almost impossible leading to perpetual gridlock on basic issues such as policing and education. This gridlock can be shown by the fifteen months it took for Bosnia and Herzegovina to form a government, and even then a compromise was only reached due to financial pressure from the IMF and EU. [1]
[1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina: the financial situation forces politicians to reach a compromise regarding the government’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 4 January 2012, http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/ceweekly/2012-01-04/bosnia-and-herzegovina-financial-situation-forces-politicians-to-reac"
Candidate 6: "Republika Srpska cannot survive economically as an independent state.
The RS and FBH have very little industry and few exports, RS for example only exports 720million euros worth compared to imports of 1.25billion euros, [1] the economy is largely based on tourism and foreign aid both of which would likely be adversely affected by the turmoil of secession. A new RS would therefore likely quickly become economically dependent on Serbia and would be unable to make the investments needed to ensure a successful new state. The drop off in tourism revenue will also reduce the prosperity of the citizens and increase poverty in the area.
[1] Remikovic, Drazen, ‘Devicit of Bosnia’s Republika Srpska half billion euros’, Balkans.com, 30 August 2011, http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=117689"
Candidate 7: "The example of Kosovo is not similar because of the terrible treatment including ethnic cleansing, mass murder and torture that Kosovars suffered within the former Yugoslavia and Serbia. Even if other examples are more similar, they are regrettable themselves, we should be seeking to bring nations together through means such as the EU and UN not split them apart.
The main reason for Kosovo's recognition stemmed from the fact that it was never really simply part of Serbia. Until the illegal constitutional changes made by Milosevic in 1989, Kosovo was a part of the Yugoslav federation in its own right, with its own seat on the Yugoslav presidency. One can't possibly claim the same constitutional status for RS, which is quite simply the areas of Bosnia which the Bosnian Serb forces were able to ethnically cleanse and keep after the war ended in 1995. Unlike Kosovo, the RS has no historical, legal or constitutional precident and is to a large degree the product of ethnic cleansing."
Candidate 8: "Secession strengthen Nationalism in the new states
Nations and Peoples are invented human constructs that have no intrinsic value. [1] Self-determination merely reinforces the idea that different groups of people are fundamentally different and not part of a shared humanity. Nationalism leads to a belief that some groups of people are superior to others, which in turn leads to discrimination against groups of people who are not seen as part of the nation. [2]
[1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, p.48, https://www2.bc.edu/marian-simion/th406/readings/0420anderson.pdf
[2] Ajnadžić, Mirza, and Kamber, Ajdin, ‘Bosnia’s “Others” Fight for Their Rights’, Institute for War & Peace Reporting, 746, 19 June 1012, http://iwpr.net/report-news/bosnias-others-fight-their-rights"
Candidate 9: "Serbs have a right to Self-Determination.
The right to self-determination is a basic human right which underpins the legitimacy of the nation-state. Where a large group people do not feel represented or accepted by a state and thus do not consent to its rule, the states control over that people becomes illegitimate. The right to national self-determination is enshrined with the UN charter [1] and formed the basis for the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.
[1] United Nations, ‘UN Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, Art. 1, Part 2’. 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml"
Candidate 10: "Areas of intermixing do exist, such as the capital, Sarajevo. Steps should be taken instead top encourage communities to live together for example with housing subsidies for mixed developments and with cross communal education."
Candidate 11: "Secession will hurt minorities in the new state
This increased nationalism will hurt minority ethnic groups within the new states, both already existing minorities such as Jews, Roma, and foreign immigrants who will no longer be part of a largely diverse state with strong legal protections for minority rights, where there are mechanisms for preventing either side dominating, [1] but will instead be part of new ethnically defined states to which they will be perceived as not belonging. Additionally it will hurt the ‘new’ minorities, the Bosniaks and Croats in RS and the Serbs in the FBH, who will be physically and mentally cut off from the state which at least in some respects formerly represented them. Instead they would be made a minority within a group of people judged fundamentally different from them and incapable of living with people like them.
[1] Szpala, Marta, ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina – an ongoing erosion of the state’, Centre for Eastern Studies, 30 March 2011, http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/ceweekly/2011-03-30/bosnia-and-herzegovina-ongoing-erosion-state"
Candidate 12: "The constitutions of the RS and FBH already enshrine the protection of linguistic and religious minorities and the new states will be aware of the international focus on the ‘new’ minority groups and will thus focus resources on protecting them in order to protect the reputation of the new state."
Candidate 13: "Both Montenegro and Kosovo had similar economic situations and have subsequently prospered after independence. Even if there were economic problems they were also both still allowed to become independent. Independence can also lead to an economic boom with new investment and diaspora emigrants returning to the country as happened with the Baltic states after independence. [1]
[1] Fifka, Matthias S., ‘The Baltics: Continuing boom or bursting bubble? A rocky short-run should not obscure a promising long run’, Business Economics, October 2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_4_43/ai_n31302641/"
Candidate 14: "Some groups of people will always not identify with the state, for class based, political and cultural reasons. State solidarity has to be based on a common humanity as that is the only fundamentally unifying factor."
Candidate 15: "There is legitimate precedent.
Kosovo became formally independent from Serbia in 2008 [1] and Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006 [2] as a result of referenda within those territories. If these states and the many, many others which previously achieved independence have a right to self-determination why doesn’t RS? To deny some groups of people access to self-determination is hypocritical and unjust.
[1] BBC News, ‘Kosovo MPs proclaim independence’, 17 February 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7249034.stm
[2] BBC News, ‘Montenegro declares independence’, 4 June 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5043462.stm"
Candidate 16: "Secession will lead to renewed conflict.
The combination of an increased nationalism and the plight of minorities trapped within states overwhelmingly composed of the ‘other’ people is likely to lead to low level tension, rioting and even potentially warfare particularly over areas which have large Serbs or Bosniak populations forming enclaves within the other state as has happened in many previous secession disputes such as the Croatian secession from Yugoslavia [1] This would plunge the area and the whole region back towards the catastrophic fighting of the 1990’s and needlessly cost many lives as happened in the partition of India [2] . It would also likely lead to waves of refugees and decreased investment and tourism in the new states blighting their futures.
[1] Reuters, ‘Roads Sealed as Yugoslav Unrest Mounts’, The New York Times, 19 August 1990, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/roads-sealed-as-yugoslav-unrest-mounts.html?ref=croatia
[2] Brass, Paul R., ‘The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab 1946-47: means, methods, and purposes’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.5, No.1, 2003, pp.71-101, p.75, http://faculty.washington.edu/brass/Partition.pdf"
Candidate 17: "The progress in the other former Yugoslav Republics is now largely irreversible as young people grow up without experience of fighting or significant ethnic division. The processes of education and increased prosperity that have led to this phenomena mean that it will likely be largely unaffected by events in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
Candidate 18: "The people within the state have no desire to live together.
The constituents peoples (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) live almost entirely in separate segregated areas with very little communal intermixing. They already essentially live in separate states but without the ability to actually direct their own affairs or receive international recognition. [1] It should be remembered that the Bosnian Serbs have already voted ponce for secession as in a referendum in November 1991 in areas which were Serb ethnic 96.4% voted for an independent State within the then Yugoslav federation. [2]
[1] Wikipedia, ‘Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
[2] Application of Genocide convention, ‘Dissenting opinion of Judge Kreca’, International Court of Justice, 11 July 1996, p.738, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/7365.pdf?PHPSESSID=1f1615e6112c0279dde6f359b53b0659"
Candidate 19: "This is just an argument for reforming state structures to reduce dysfunction, perhaps by moving to majority votes instead of each side having a veto. Additionally if the two sides have difficulty cooperating now, why would that cooperation become easier when they no longer share a state? This would at the minimum lead to two neighbouring states without a functional relationship and thus limited ability to act collectively on cross border crime or trade."
| Some groups of people will always not identify with the state, for class based, political and cultural reasons. State solidarity has to be based on a common humanity as that is the only fundamentally unifying factor.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: Ooaman: Christianity holds that Jesus is the "Son of" God.
Response: No, Christianity holds that Jesus IS God. \nThat Jesus also is NOT God just shows how contradictory the Bible is for Christians (but they overlook logic and hold blindly to their silly trinity position anyway). | -0.2 |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | We should legalize the organ trade so that operations are performed safely by licensed physicians in hospitals. | 0.920627262 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: A UN standing army is unnecessary
A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.
Candidate 1: "A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army."
Candidate 2: "A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system."
Candidate 3: "A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.
1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26"
Candidate 4: "The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.
1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86
2, Ibid"
Candidate 5: "Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case."
| The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.
1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86
2, Ibid
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: abortion
Stance: CON
Aspect: funding | In addition , the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used for elective abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother . |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within the EU as an independent nation [1] [/quote] A vote for independence would therefore be a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.
Interestingly should Scotland become independent and accede to the EU there would have to be a treaty change to provide for Scottish representation in EU institutions. [2] This could well trigger an EU referendum in the remainder of the UK (rUK) under the 'referendum lock'.
[1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/scot-europe-sturgon-26022013 §9
[2] Avery, Graham, ‘HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 24 September 2012, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm point 6.
Candidate 1: "Scottish independence might be a faster route out of the EU than a referendum.
Before 2012 the SNP argued that Independence could be achieved and Scotland remain within the EU while retaining all UK opt outs with a minimal amount of trouble. However this position has since changed largely due to European commission pronouncements on the issue. [1] There is no EU precedent to the situation that Scottish independence would bring about. It has been argued that Scotland would not automatically remain part of the EU and would have to reapply. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said [quote=Barroso] For the European Union’s purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and then it has to negotiate into the European Union [2] [/quote] Certainly if Scotland's application to join the EU were a normal one then the 18 month timetable between referendum to independence would not give enough time to go through the process of joining the EU. Some applications have taken over a decade, the UK's own (second) application took over 5 years. The fastest application was Finland which only took 2 years 10 months between application and accession. [3] Even seemingly very minor disputes can hold up membership for long periods, a Croatia-Slovenia dispute over maritime access considerably delayed the accession of the former. Thus small disputes like with Spain over fishing rights or with Ireland over Rockall could be a considerable drag on Scotland's application. [4] None of the above are insurmountable problems and would only impose a temporary exit of Scotland from the EU. However, it is possible that Scotland will be unable to rejoin. It ought to be remembered that enlargement requires unanimous support of the current member states, which may not be forthcoming. A number of other states such as Belgium and Italy have regions with national aspirations, the most likely European opponent to Scottish independence would be Spain with its eastern region of Catalonia's independence movement often being compared to Scotland's. As a result there have been persistent rumours that Spain might veto Scottish re-entry into the EU in order to send a message to its own separatists. [5] Spain’s Prime Minister Rajoy was plain when he said [quote=Rajoy] It's very clear to me… a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU. [6] [/quote]
[1] Carrell, Severin, ‘Barroso casts doubt on independent Scotland’s EU membership rights’, The Guardian, 12 September 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/12/barroso-doubt-scotland-eu-membership McSmith, Andy, ‘The impact of that Barroso letter’, The Independent, 20 December 2012, http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/12/11/the-impact-of-that-barroso-letter/
[2] Davidson, Ruth, ‘Separate Scotland would have to reapply to EU – Barroso’, Scottish Conservatives, 10 December 2012, http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2012/12/separate-scotland-would-have-to-reapply-to-eu-barroso/ [BBC Hardtalk transcript]
[3] Wikipedia, ‘Enlargement of the European Union’, accessed 4 November 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union
[4] Open Europe Blog, ‘Scottish independence and EU accession: tricky to pull off in one manoeuvre?’, 5 February 2013, http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/scottish-independence-and-eu-accession.html
[5] York, Christopher, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain Could Veto EU Membership’, The Huffington Post, 6 December 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/06/scottish-independence-eu-accession-veto-spain_n_2249473.html
Peterkin, Tom, ‘Scottish Independence: Spain key to Scotland’s EU hopes’, The Scotsman, 4 November 2012, http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-spain-key-to-scotland-s-eu-hopes-1-2613465
[6] Carrell, Severin, and Kassam, Ashifa, ‘Scottish independence: Spain blocks Alex Salmond’s hopes for EU transition’, The Guardian, 27 November 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu"
Candidate 2: "On the vast majority of issues rUK and Scotland have the same interests. Scotland wants to retain the UK’s opt outs on issues such as the free movement of people and the Euro. Scotland also has the same interests on the main issue for the EU; trade. Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted the benefit to Scotland of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership something that the UK is also strongly in favour of. [1]
[1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/scot-europe-sturgon-26022013"
Candidate 3: "The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU.
Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Commons is likely to be butchered in the Lords and David Cameron's promise of a 2017 referendum relies on a Conservative victory in 2015. Such a victory may not happen, despite Labour's soft poll lead the natural bias of the current boundaries make an outright Conservative victory a very remote prospect. [1] Even if a referendum does get held the out supporters would then have to win it. Although polls for a prospective EU membership referendum tend to show those who favour the exit leading this cannot be taken as necessarily meaning that it is likely to happen. Polls change, the AV referendum saw numbers initially favourable to AV swing round to a decisive victory against AV over the course of the campaign. [2] There are a number of reasons why this is likely in an in/out EU referendum. A vote to leave the EU is in fact rather unlikely because of the full weight of the establishment in the staying in camp. Businesses tend to favour staying in because [quote=John Cridland, Director General of the CBI] being a member of a reformed EU is the best way to preserve market access [3] [/quote]. The CBI released a report that said that each UK household was £3,000 better off due to EU membership. [4] That is a lot of money and if opinions on the EU are anything like those on Scottish independence it is a killer argument. 56% of scots would favour independence if it would make them £500 better off but only 22% would still be in favour of independence if it would make them £500 worse off. [5] If similar swings were to occur in an EU referendum Britain would not be leaving the EU. Furthermore, the referendum is likely only to occur after a renegotiation which is bound to bring something, enough for the (presumably Conservative) Prime minister to recommend a vote to stay in, the result would be support for the EU across all three main parties, plus the nationalist parties as well. A renegotiation sufficient for a conservative PM to recommend staying in also has an interesting effect upon polled voting intentions by almost exactly reversing them. A YouGov poll (May 2013) found that while under the current terms 47% would vote to leave and only 30% to stay but after renegotiation 32% would vote to leave and 45% to stay. [6]
[1] Mylles, Richard, ‘The chances of an EU referendum in the next parliament are wildly overstated’, New Statesman, 18 July 2013, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/chances-eu-referendum-next-parliament-are-wildly-overstated
[2] UKPollingReport, ‘Alternative Vote’, accessed 4 November 2013, http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/av-referendum
[3] Cridland, John, ‘Leaving Europe would be bad for British business’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/17/business-better-off-staying-in-europe
[4] CBI, ‘In with reform or out with no influence – CBI chief makes case for EU membership’, 4 November 2013, http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2013/11/in-with-reform-our-out-with-no-influence-cbi-chief-makes-case-for-eu-membership/
[5] ICM, ‘Scottish Independence Poll – September 2013’, 18 September 2013, http://www.icmresearch.com/scottish-independence-poll-september-2013
[6] YouGov, ‘YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results’, 10 May 2013, http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2chabiz0nj/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-100513.pdf p.15."
Candidate 4: "Just because the Scots are less Europhobic than the English does not mean they are actually natural Europhiles. There is still a fair amount of euroscepticism in Scotland [quote=Prof. John Curtice] The rise of UKIP is also evident here albeit at a lower level [1] [/quote]. When Scots were asked 'Which institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?' in 2012 9% thought the EU did, when the question was changed to 'Which institution do you think ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run?' Only 1% said the EU, which certainly implies a degree of Euroscepticism. [2] One poll asking the question 'if Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU?' even got a no answer, with 49% saying no and 32% saying yes. [3]
Indeed Scotland was more anti-european in the 1975 referendum on Europe than England. 41.6% of Scots voted no to joining the European Community compared to 31.3% of English. [4] Scottish attitudes towards the EC/EU changed in the 1980s as Thatcher was becoming increasingly Europhobic. Because of this shift some academics think that the Scottish pro-european sentiment is a result of anti-Tory feeling rather than a judgement on Europe itself. [5] If this is the case then once independence removes the threat of Tory government Scottish attitudes to Europe might well shift back into a more anti-European position.
[1] BBC Newsnight Scotland, 25 October 2013 01:12 am
[2] What Scotland Thinks, ‘Which Institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?’, 2012, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-institution-do-you-think-has-most-influence-over-how-scotland-is-run#line http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-institution-ought-to-have-most-influence-over-how-scotland-is-run#line
[3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU? ’, 2012 http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu
[4] Wikipedia, ‘United Kingdom European Community membership referendup 1975’, accessed 4 November 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
[5] Carrell, Severin, ‘Salmond’s EU crisis: polling suggests Scottish voters care’, theguardian.com, 7 November 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/scotland-blog/2012/nov/07/scotland-alexsalmond-europe-polls"
Candidate 5: "The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.
The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same position. It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU then it implicitly wants to join the EU as it is now and could retain exceptional status only in the very short term. [1] The change in relationship would probably change the Scottish attitude to the EU, although it is hard to say whether this would be automatically in a negative way. The implication of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments quoted earlier is that Scotland will be unlikely to retain the UK's opt outs from certain areas of EU policy. Most obviously it is likely that if joining as a new state Scotland may have no choice but to join the Euro at least in the long term when it meets the convergence requirements. [2] Several polls show Scots less likely to vote for independence if Scotland would then have to join the Euro. [3] The other main sticking point would be Schengen, it has been suggested that Scotland would have to join the EU's free travel zone which the UK is not currently a member of and the main consequence of this would be border controls between Scotland and England. [4] Were Scotland to seek to avoid joining the Euro and Schengen then it would prolong the application process meaning that Scotland would be unlikely to be ready to join the EU upon independence. This point was made by the ambassador of the EU's newest member Croatia [quote=Ambassador Ivan Grdesic] if you decide to opt out on many things, you are not ready actually... [/quote] so warning that attempts to opt out of the Euro and Schengen would prolong negotiations. [5]
[1] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3017_scotland_s_future.pdf pp.6-7.
[2] Thorp, Arabella, and Thompson, Gavin, ‘Scotland, independence and the EU – Commons Library Standard Note’, parliament.uk, 13 July 2012, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06110
[3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If an independent Scotland had to join the Euro, how would this effect your vote in a Scottish independence referendum?’, January 2013, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-had-to-join-the-euro-how-would-this-effect-your-vote-in-a-scottish http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/adopting-euro-after-scotland-joing-eu-will-make-you
[4] Barnes, Eddie, ‘Scottish independence: EU may force border terms’, The Scotsman, http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-may-force-border-terms-1-3165731
[5] BBC News, ‘Scottish independence: Warning over EU membership plan’, 3 November 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24794438"
Candidate 6: "The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots with only 36% opposing a referendum. [1] A vote for independence would therefore seem to be a vote in favour of the validity of referendums legitimising the need to have referendums on similarly large issues in the future. A vote for an independent Scotland is not necessarily a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.
[1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-want-EU-referendum-but-would-vote-to-stay-in.aspx"
| The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots with only 36% opposing a referendum. [1] A vote for independence would therefore seem to be a vote in favour of the validity of referendums legitimising the need to have referendums on similarly large issues in the future. A vote for an independent Scotland is not necessarily a vote for a stable relationship with Europe.
[1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-want-EU-referendum-but-would-vote-to-stay-in.aspx
|
Given the following essay as context, and a list of argumentative components extracted from the essay. Label each argumentative component as "major claim", "claim", or "premise". | Essay: Do modern communication technologies benefit all people
Modern communication technologies such as mobile phones, e-mails and internet chat programs like the MSN Messenger have brought significant changes to our lives in recent years. Yet, there remains some disagreement as to whether the overall effect of this innovation has been positive or negative. Although there are valid arguments to the contrary, it is my belief that the majority of people in the globe have benefited greatly from these powerful and effective means of modern communication.
To begin with, mobile phones and other tools of modern communication facilitate not only contact with friends and relatives in faraway places but also global business. With the click of a button, the vast amount of information can be transmitted from America to China in just a few seconds. Furthermore, it is generally felt that the access to these tools of communication is available in every corner of the world. With a mobile phone or a laptop, a person can talk or send messages online at a bus stop, in a corner shop or anywhere they could imagine. Therefore, it seems that these new forms of communication do bring a great deal of convenience to humankind.
Nevertheless, opponents of modern communications claim that only the more privileged are able to enjoy the benefits. They further point out that the wide spread use of these efficient and effective ways of communication costs a considerable amount of money. Anyone who aims to use these innovations have to not only pay for the appliances such as a mobile phone or a computer but also cover up costs for communication services. Consequently, people who live in poverty are less likely to be benefited from modern communication technologies.
By way of conclusion, I believe that modern communication technologies will benefit more people in the future as the pace of life increases; however, the have-nots cannot be ignored simply because they couldn't afford it.
Argumentative components: there are valid arguments to the contrary
the majority of people in the globe have benefited greatly from these powerful and effective means of modern communication
modern communication technologies will benefit more people in the future as the pace of life increases
these new forms of communication do bring a great deal of convenience to humankind
mobile phones and other tools of modern communication facilitate not only contact with friends and relatives in faraway places but also global business
With the click of a button, the vast amount of information can be transmitted from America to China in just a few seconds
it is generally felt that the access to these tools of communication is available in every corner of the world
With a mobile phone or a laptop, a person can talk or send messages online at a bus stop, in a corner shop or anywhere they could imagine
people who live in poverty are less likely to be benefited from modern communication technologies
the more privileged are able to enjoy the benefits
the wide spread use of these efficient and effective ways of communication costs a considerable amount of money
Anyone who aims to use these innovations have to not only pay for the appliances such as a mobile phone or a computer but also cover up costs for communication services | Major claims:
the majority of people in the globe have benefited greatly from these powerful and effective means of modern communication
modern communication technologies will benefit more people in the future as the pace of life increases
Claims:
there are valid arguments to the contrary
the majority of people in the globe have benefited greatly from these powerful and effective means of modern communication
modern communication technologies will benefit more people in the future as the pace of life increases
these new forms of communication do bring a great deal of convenience to humankind
people who live in poverty are less likely to be benefited from modern communication technologies
Premises:
mobile phones and other tools of modern communication facilitate not only contact with friends and relatives in faraway places but also global business
With the click of a button, the vast amount of information can be transmitted from America to China in just a few seconds
it is generally felt that the access to these tools of communication is available in every corner of the world
With a mobile phone or a laptop, a person can talk or send messages online at a bus stop, in a corner shop or anywhere they could imagine
the more privileged are able to enjoy the benefits
the wide spread use of these efficient and effective ways of communication costs a considerable amount of money
Anyone who aims to use these innovations have to not only pay for the appliances such as a mobile phone or a computer but also cover up costs for communication services |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Chief Scientist of the WHO : schools should go back in the way we have seen schools go back in parts of Europe
Proposition: schools should go back in the way we have seen schools go back in parts of Europe | Default Illocuting |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: In short, all of materialism/mechanism/physicalism/positivism/naturalism/darwinism/geneticism reduces to giving credit to effects for being their own causes. Which earns a great big, "DUH!!", from me.
Response: But then of course nearly every idea not your own generates a DUH from you. As in DUH why use data. | -2.8 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Seventh: They (and heterosexual sinners) cost taxpayers untold billions in unnecessary health care costs to treat AIDS and other diseases they give to each other. It costs us all money out of our pockets.
Response: So why not then cure AIDS? And why are you playing upon the old Gay Aids myth? once again not one point that is relevant to the questions I asked... Your just shifting blame and scapegoating...\n | -0.8 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: The Taliban is a cruel and undemocratic regime, and so it should not be given any power.
The Taliban oppressed their own people, especially women and ethnic or religious minorities. A very strict, distinctive interpretation of Sunni Islam was enforced zealously (with public executions and amputations) as they attempted to build the world’s purest Islamic state. Television and music were banned, women had to be fully covered up and were forbidden from receiving an education or working (despite many families having lost their male members after years of warfare, and so rendering many families entirely dependent upon food aid for survival), and their access to healthcare was restricted.
The well-known story provided by Time Magazine: Aisha who ran away from her husband’s house. Her husband was abusing her physically and mentally. When she was caught by the Taliban «soldiers», she was taken to the Taliban Court and given a punishment in their law. The punishment was, her ears and nose was cut. She was then left for dead however she survived because an Afghan Rights group managed to save her. She is just one example. Therefore, if we let the Taliban participate in power-sharing, they will try to implement their form of justice which is totally biased when it comes to women. We cannot afford to sacrifice women rights for peace in Afghanistan.
Another example of the violence is the massacre of Yakaolang in January 2001: Hazaras were victimized for 4 days, detained 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of humanitarian orgnisations. Men were shot at public places. Rocket launchers were fired at Mosques were 73 women and children were sheltering. In May 2000, 26 civilians of Hazara Shi’as group were executed in robatak pass. In August 1998 Taliban captured Mazar- I- Sharif. Reports of killing of around 2000- 5000 people mostly of Hazara clan were presented. [1]
All of this shows the barbarity of the Taliban’s activities, which so far hasn’t stopped.
[1] Eyewitness accounts of Taliban massacre in Yakaolang, By RAWA reporters, June, 2001 http://www.rawa.org/yakw-r.htm
Candidate 1: "We have successful precedents in Iraq and Africa, proving that a power-sharing approach works.
African countries and in Iraq have proved that power-sharing deal works. So, it means that it is possible to find a solution for Afghanistan. For example, Iraq seems to be no need for us to prove that power-sharing has worked to greatly improve conditions in the country. Conditions that horrifically grew at an incredible pace during the war in Iraq. [1] The Iraqi government comprises of many members of the late Saddam regime who have been granted amnesty for their crimes. Members of the Taliban can be instated in governments through power-sharing (not giving) deal; in the same way.
Talks in Kenya ensued during the Bush administration when funds for the recuperation of fourth world African affairs were channelled to the region, jointly by the USA and UK. Both Blair and Bush worked side by side with formerly corrupt and violent African leaders to pick the Countries up. South Africa, which is ranked as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank [2] (formerly a fourth world country) is now doing better than both India and China (third-world countries) on the economic front. [3]
[1] Obama: Time for Iraqis to 'take responsibility', NBC News and news services, updated 4/7/2009 1:29:02 PM ET, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30087747/#.Tk5vjF3BDqQ
[2] World Bank Data – South Africa, http://data.worldbank.org/country/south-africa
[3] Bush urges Kenya power-sharing, BBC News, Last Updated: Saturday, 16 February 2008, 18:05 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248271.stm"
Candidate 2: "Intense international demand for opium has led to poppies becoming a preferred cash crop among Afghan farmers. Although historically known for its fruit and vegetable production, the high prices commanded by opium mean that it is regarded as financially resilient, immune to large price fluctuations and still offering decent returns, even if a large proportion of a crop fails. Although the Taliban profited from levies on the opium trade, so did the warlords they displaced. In fact, in 2000 the Taliban, responding to global concern over the heroin trade and its own religious impulses, issued orders that opium should not be grown. As a result, production dropped by over 90% with a noticeable impact upon street prices of heroin in Europe. This suggests both that engagement with the Taliban was potentially constructive, and that a collapse of central control would give drug runners a free hand."
Candidate 3: "The threat of Talibanization is too great under the status quo to continue with current policy.
If a diplomatic solution is not reached or even proposed , the security situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will deteriorate and this is a matter of serious concern since the latter is a nuclear power. Violence in the region can only be disseminated if the Taliban feel they are not being attacked but are included; then peace has a chance of prevailing. If the region were to be left as is Increasing Taliban activity could further destabilize the border regions of Pakistan, while attacks mounted against the Afghan interior would cause significant damage and endanger thousands of live. [1]
An entrenched Afghani Taliban could support and embolden groups with similar ideologies elsewhere in central Asia and the subcontinent. For instance, groups ideologically identical to the Taliban effectively subdued the Pakistani military in the Swat Valley allowing them to impose their version of sharia law and institute measures that included closing girls' schools, banning music, and installing complaint boxes for reports of anti-Islamic behaviour. [2] Continue with the status quo and the Taliban will simply re-conquer Afghanistan when the coalition leaves.
[1] Amna Saboor, «The Waziristan problem», December 14th, 2008, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2008/12/14/the-waziristan...
[2] Jane Perlez and Zubair Shan Truce in Pakistan May Mean Leeway for Taliban, The New York Times, published March 5, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/world/asia/06swat.html"
Candidate 4: "The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.
President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.”
At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure.
Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion. [1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden. [2]
[1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010, http://nationalinterest.org/article/a-war-we-cant-afford-3344
[2] ibid"
Candidate 5: "The campaign is unpopular among the majority of NATO countries citizens, so we should solve the Afghan problem in diplomatic way, specifically through a power-sharing deal with the Taliban.
The majority of citizens in the USA and the UK oppose the war in Afghanistan and want troops to come back home. As was the case in Iraq, a diplomatic solution is required to end the war as smoothly as possible. As at 12 August 2011, a total of 379 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001. [1] About 2000 coalition soldiers in total expired in Afghanistan. [2] More than 1340 British soldiers have been wounded in action. U.S opinion poll proclaims that 62% of Americans want troops home as soon as possible while the rest want a timetable for troop withdrawal. [3] According to Michael Moore, Obama is the new war president. He needs to prove that he is a peacemaker to retrieve the support of his people. [4] The media agrees that the war is unpopular and there needs to be an end creating sentiment like “I wish they would bring them all home.” Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian argues “I think the people in Wootton Bassett [where UK soldiers are repatriated] are representative of a very widespread... feeling, actually, of outrage on their behalf that is quite new in British politics. A complete withdrawal is in public demand. This requires a power-sharing deal.” [5]
[1] Ministry of Defense, Operations in Afghanistan: British Fatalities, http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/Operat...
[2] Devin Dwyer and Luis Martinez, «Afghanistan War Costs More Than 1,000 U.S. Service Members' Lives», abcNEWS, May 28, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-military-casualties-afghanistan-pakist...
[3] CBS NEWS POLL, for release: July 13, 2010, http://www.scribd.com/doc/34290347/CBS-News-Poll-Pessimism-about-Economy...
[4] Michael Moore, «An Open Letter To President Obama On Afghanistan», Posted November 30, 2009 04:00 AM, Huffpost World, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_...
[5] PBS REPORT War Weary British Seek An End in Afghanistan, Margaret Warner travels to the tiny English village of Wootton Bassett and finds growing unease about British involvement in Afghanistan, Dec. 8, 2009, Transcript http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec09/britain_12-08.html"
Candidate 6: "The Taliban were not the only oppressive regime in the world and it was hypocritical to single them out, especially when many of their practices are shared by friendly, pro-western states such as Saudi Arabia. Their views were not an entirely alien imposition upon Afghan society, but were rooted in the traditions of the Pashtun, one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups.
The war has done nothing to improve the conditions of women and children in the war-zone! Women' rights are already being violated in both coalition countries and the war-zone. Rape, murder and theft are soaring the world over. While petty financial crimes are reduced. [1] Domestic violence especially against women and children is on a steep climb and remains largely under-reported. Only 35% cases are reported in the UK
The proposition has however provided evidence that the conditions of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have deteriorated as a consequence of the war: air strikes, drone attacks, physio-psychological trauma and so forth.
The proposition has time and time again asserted that the war must be put to an end and the only means to win it in real terms is to talk the Taliban out of it. Both the Americans and British have a history of accomplishing peace with groups that the Taliban roots from by bargaining with them to renounce their natural guerrilla-fighting instincts.
[1] Crime Statistics, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes , Domestic violence statistics, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Domestic-violence-statistics"
Candidate 7: "It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the country for economic reasons. Nor is it surprising that the Taliban had difficult relations with the representatives of the United Nations, as it is not recognised by the UN, where the Afghanistan seat in the General Assembly was still held by the discredited regime the Taliban overthrew.
The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways.
The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade.
If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory (as they do already) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region. (The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated).The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the UK and USA frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people."
Candidate 8: "The Taliban are not the only regime in the world to have sheltered terrorists – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are all viewed by the USA’s State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, although the Taliban provide shelter for terrorist groups to train, the other states could be seen to go further, by actively initiating and funding terrorism. Moreover, given that Russia and the Central Asian former soviet states have been opposed to the Taliban from the start, and backed the Northern Alliance against it in the Afghan civil war, it is hardly surprising that the Taliban backed their own rebel movements. It could also be asked whether rebels in Chechnya, Kosovo and China should be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters.
The opposition cannot be expecting the proposition to defend the reinstatement of the pseudo-religious-extremist-fundamentalist Taliban regime. We are in fact calling for exactly the opposite: Please the Taliban by negotiating with them on the coalition's terms not theirs and avert the old form of Taliban rule in the region. If the coalition leaves without any talks whatsoever then an extremist Taliban takeover of both Pakistan and Afghanistan is a distinct possibility. If the coalition leaves after buying the Taliban out while imposing conditions imperative to human rights and western values (including respect for other ethnic/religious/ideological groups). Then we have a chance for peace. To claim that aggressively fighting on the ground will end racial conflict when 9 years of fighting have only exacerbated these problems; is rather ignorant. It entails learning nothing at all from history/past-mistakes. If this kind of warfare which the Taliban are much better at; continues the war will be lost. If instead as the wonderful Obama has suggested we resort to peaceful talks this time directly with the Taliban, then we have a chance of winning."
Candidate 9: "Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.
No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen & then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad. [1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.
[1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul», http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/kabul1842.htm
[2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/politics/main5851527.shtml"
| The Taliban were not the only oppressive regime in the world and it was hypocritical to single them out, especially when many of their practices are shared by friendly, pro-western states such as Saudi Arabia. Their views were not an entirely alien imposition upon Afghan society, but were rooted in the traditions of the Pashtun, one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups.
The war has done nothing to improve the conditions of women and children in the war-zone! Women' rights are already being violated in both coalition countries and the war-zone. Rape, murder and theft are soaring the world over. While petty financial crimes are reduced. [1] Domestic violence especially against women and children is on a steep climb and remains largely under-reported. Only 35% cases are reported in the UK
The proposition has however provided evidence that the conditions of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have deteriorated as a consequence of the war: air strikes, drone attacks, physio-psychological trauma and so forth.
The proposition has time and time again asserted that the war must be put to an end and the only means to win it in real terms is to talk the Taliban out of it. Both the Americans and British have a history of accomplishing peace with groups that the Taliban roots from by bargaining with them to renounce their natural guerrilla-fighting instincts.
[1] Crime Statistics, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes , Domestic violence statistics, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Domestic-violence-statistics
|
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: Danger to students
Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe. [1]
[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-...
Candidate 1: "The marketplace of ideas
The truth can only emerge from competition between various ideas in free, transparent discourse. To silence any idea is to remove ideas from the marketplace thus reducing the individual’s ability to use his/her reason and intellect to arrive at a conclusion. [1] Silencing ideas also creates separate marketplaces thereby reducing the legitimacy of both and making it easier for someone espousing hate speech to use censorship as a justification for not engaging their ideas in open debate. When this happens, it becomes more likely that individuals who feel alienated from main stream society will find meaning in the hateful ideas which have also been excluded from the mainstream. This is very similar to the concept of the free market in economics where the freer the market the better off everyone is. [2]
[1] Wikipedia, “Marketplace of Ideas”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas Retrieved 2011-08-23.
[2] Lee, Steven P., ‘Hate Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas’, D. Golash (ed.), Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010, http://www.springer.com/978-90-481-8998-4 p.15"
Candidate 2: "Freedom of expression is a means to education
Students need to be able to take chances and express unpopular ideas in order to maximize their personal growth and development. Speech codes, even ones designed to only censor hate speech, have a chilling effect on all speech as students become afraid to say anything that is not politically correct. For example a student at California Polytechnic State University underwent a day long disciplinary hearing for posting a flyer publicising a talk “It’s O.K. to Leave the Plantation”. [1] It would not be surprising if students are less willing to organise such events after such a dressing down. Students also need to learn to respond to ideas they don’t like because even if censorship of hate speech is effectively controlled on campus, it still exists in the outside world. Students will only be able to maximize their ability to ask questions, state opinions, and respond to ideas on a free campus.
[1] Berger, Joseph, “Film Portrays Stifling of Speech, but One College’s Struggle Reflects a Nuanced Reality” New York Times, June 27, 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/education/27education.html"
Candidate 3: "Hate speech can encourage dialogue and be positive. Allowing hate speech provides an opportunity to combat and change the views of those who are promoting hatred. In the long term this will lead to a reduction in violence through helping air and then solve the underlying causes.
(See Op Argument 1)"
Candidate 4: "The need for interaction is all the more reason to ensure that all ideas are in the marketplace. This way, the veracity of all ideas are questioned. For example, if someone brings bigoted ideas with them as a freshman, perhaps because these ideas were prevalent in the community they grew up in, if they cannot express these ideas and be challenged they may never attempt to integrate. Instead, they will gravitate to those who share their ideas and remain isolated."
Candidate 5: "There is the potential for massive harm should universities become places where individuals continuously need to contain their thoughts and ideas for fear of sanction. It is far easier to actively promote open dialogue and tolerance as this will lead to more diversity."
Candidate 6: "Universities are bastions of free expression
Historically, universities have been centres of free speech and expression. The idea of tenure for professors was developed to ensure academic freedom both for teachers and students. [1] Censorship of any type of expression is a direct assault on the principles of a university. As Oliver Wendell Holmes commented, "The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." Free speech on campus is responsible for producing, or at least fostering many of the progressive ideas of the 20th century even though these ideas were threatening and caused emotion distress to many people.
[1] American Association of University Professors (AAUP), ‘1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure’, 1940, http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm"
Candidate 7: "Freedom of expression is a political right
Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and The First Amendment in the United States. [2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.
[1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7...
[2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment"
Candidate 8: "The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]
[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-..."
| The government’s primary duty is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Censoring speech is a clear attack on the right to free expression. Governments can use the criminal code to ensure people are protected. Acts that physically harm people or directly encourage others to use violence are already illegal and these laws can be enforced without violating an individual’s constitutional rights. [1]
[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-...
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Communism vs. capitalism
Quote: Sorry, but what you do not realize is that we kicked out European forms of government in 1776. We saved European governments in WW2. The USA was the very FRIST government ever to be rulled by common and free men. When the USA first had the vote, Europe still had kings and emperors.
Response: The founding fathers were afraid to trust the common people with the right to vote. They didn\'t want mob rule and chaos. "Most of the Founders believed that property ownership was essential to good citizenship and therefore that only property owners should be able to vote. \'Property\', in those days, also included slaves, of course, and half of the Founders were slave owners....The maintenance of power in the hands of the elite was further strengthened by who could vote. In 1787, there were about four million people living in the 13 original states. But only about four percent of them, it is estimated, could vote. Excluded were the one million slaves, the two million women, anyone under the age of 21, and all non-property owners."\nhttp://www.alternativesmagazine.com/22/lonsdale.html | 1.0 |
Subsets and Splits