instruction
stringclasses 21
values | input
stringlengths 35
47.2k
| output
stringlengths 2
23.6k
|
|---|---|---|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Throughout history god has been cited as the cause for mental illness, the weather, viral and bacterial infection, volcanic eruptions, it was only because certain people preferred physical, measurable explanations of these phenomena that the human race now has facilities for psychology, forecasting weather and natural disasters as well as modern medicine. | Source physicalism is many times more probable than omni-theism. |
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. | IC: Two of the US agencies primarily responsible for combating cross-border arms trafficking are the ATF and the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Have these agencies collaborated effectively or been given the proper resources to stem the flow of US firearms to Mexico? | US agencies for combating cross-border arms trafficking are the ATF and ICE Have these agencies collaborated effectively or been given the proper resources to stem the flow of US firearms to Mexico? |
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. | The contemporary Left claims not to exist. Whereas the Right sees left-wing threats everywhere, those on the Left eschew any use of the term "we," emphasizing issue politics, identity politics, and their own frag- mentation into a multitude of singularities. Writing in the wake of the announcement of the "death of communism," and challenging the adequacy of that description of the collapse of the Soviet Party-State, Badiou notes, 'There is no longer a 'we,' there hasn't been one for a long time. The 'we' entered into its twi- light well before the 'death of communism.' "12 Over thirty years of unbridled capitalism made egoism and individualism the order of the day such that collectivity was already viewed with suspicion. The demise of the USSR didn't kill the "we." The absence of a common program or vision is generally lamented, even as this absence is disconnected from the setting in which it appears as an absence, namely, the loss of a Left that says "we" and "our" and "us" in the first place. There are issues, events, projects, demonstrations, and affmity groups, but the Left claims not to exist. Left melancholics lament the lack of political alternatives when the real politi- cal alternative is the one whose loss determines their aimlessness—communism. | those on the Left eschew any use of the term "we," emphasizing issue politics, identity politics, and their own frag- mentation into a multitude of singularities announcement of the "death of communism Badiou notes, 'There is no longer a 'we,' Over thirty years of unbridled capitalism made egoism and individualism the order of the day such that collectivity was already viewed with suspicion There are issues, events, projects, demonstrations, and affmity groups, but the Left claims not to exist. Left melancholics lament the lack of political alternatives when the real politi- cal alternative is the one whose loss determines their aimlessness—communism |
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 longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:
Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.
1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.
Candidate 1: "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."
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: "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."
| 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.
|
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. | Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases, and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law | Overruling would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision A decision to overrule would address error at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law |
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: Youth are not represented in politics
Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth quarter of 2012 was 23.2%, almost twice the unemployment rate as a whole. [2] This is because many countries do not implement youth friendly policies; northern countries like Germany are determined to impose austerity which increases unemployment, while southern countries when implementing reforms are not implementing labour reforms that would loosen the security of permanent workers in return for reducing unemployment. [3] This may in part be a result of demographics in Europe. Europe is aging; in 1991 19.3% of the EU 27’s population was under 14 while 13.9% over 65, by 2011 this had changed to 15.6% under 14 and 17.5% over 65. [4] With an increasing contingent of elderly (who are anyway more likely to vote) the influence of young voters is declining. Reducing the voting age will help to redress this imbalance.
[1] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf
[2] Eurostat, ‘Unemployment Statistics’, European Commission, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics , accessed 3 May 2013
[3] Crook, ‘Why Europe Really Must Pursue ‘Structural Reform’’, Bloomberg, 1 February 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/why-europe-really-must-pursue-structural-reform-clive-crook.html
[4] Eurostat, ‘Population structure and ageing’, European Commission, October 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing
Candidate 1: "By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around."
Candidate 2: "While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy."
Candidate 3: "There should not be different voting ages for different elections
There can be no legitimate moral reason for allowing someone to vote in one election and not another. Most of the arguments involved in when people can vote revolve around when they are mature enough, understand the issues, and are considered adult. All of these arguments make little sense if someone can vote in one election but not another on the basis of age. Why should someone be considered mature enough to understand the issues for a European election but not their own local elections? There are very few countries that have different voting ages for different elections – out of those Wikipedia lists only Germany, Israel, and Italy have differing ages for different elections. [1]
[1] Wikipedia, ‘Voting age’, en.wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age , accessed 3 May 2013"
Candidate 4: "Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is particularly concerned with encouraging ‘Active citizenship’ for which it makes sense that the European Union actually enable youth to exercise one of the main rights that active citizenship involves; voting. [1]
[1] European Commission, ‘The Council adopts new EU youth policy framework’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/youth/news/the-council-adopts-new-eu-youth-policy-framework_en.htm , accessed 3 May 2013"
Candidate 5: "Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes
Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are not the parties that the electorate really want when it comes to creating policy. It reflects the fact that voters don’t believe that their vote for the European Parliament matters.
Yet because voting at 16 is two years earlier than voting in most national elections voting for the European Parliament will be 16 and 17 year olds first experience of voting; as they did not vote for the government they are much less likely to be using their vote simply as a protest against the national government. This is because it will be clear that they are not voting on the basis of national issues because they can’t vote at that level. This then represents a good chance for parties to get their European policies across to the youngest voters so that they know what their vote at the European level means.
[1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf , p.506"
Candidate 6: "This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?"
Candidate 7: "It would help distinguish between levels of elections
The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not being concerned about being allowed to vote for them all at the same age. Having elections for the European Parliament at the age of 16 would clearly distinguish the elections from all the other elections within the country (with the exception of Austria). For the European Union this would be an opportunity to show that it cares for the youth vote and has their issues at heart as it is a chance to get teenagers involved in Europe before they can be involved in their own national elections. For the teenagers it provides a chance to engage with one election, and one electoral system, before all the others helping to keep things simple."
Candidate 8: "This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attempt at voting may help increase their experience making it easier when they have numerous ballots to fill in so overall reducing voting error."
Candidate 9: "Would complicate elections
Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting. [1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots.
[1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf , p.3"
Candidate 10: "A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes
The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European Parliament it is up to each member to decide the form of the election within certain ground rules. [1] In this case the interference would not be direct; the European parliament would not be passing any legislation saying that national and regional parliaments must allow votes at sixteen because they don’t have the power to do that but by allowing voting at sixteen they would be making national elections look inconsistent. It would quickly be seen as illegitimate to allow sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote in some elections and not others without a good justification. As the level of election that is most distant from the individual if there were to be a discrepancy in voting ages it should logically be the other way around with the most abstract vote being granted last.
[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013"
Candidate 11: "Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them."
Candidate 12: "While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives."
Candidate 13: "This may be a good opportunity to change this impression of the European Parliament being boring. Having young people voting will in itself make the election more interesting to the media who will then talk about the issues at the same time. Europe focusing on broad brush issues may actually be a good thing as young people tend to be idealistic they may be more rather than less interested in the big issues such as carbon trading. Moreover if this fails then there is little reason to think that apathy at the European elections will spill over onto other elections"
Candidate 14: "This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government."
Candidate 15: "The voting age should be the same across the Union
It is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen. [1] This means that a tiny minority of the Youth in the European Union get to vote before the rest something which is clearly discrimination against the majority of the European Union’s 16 and 17 year olds; ‘universal suffrage’ should be universal for the European Parliament across the whole of the Union. The age should therefore be lowered to sixteen so that voting age is universally recognised with no one group receiving the right to vote before the others.
[1] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html , accessed 3 May 2013"
Candidate 16: "EU elections would put young people off voting
Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environmental legislation such as the carbon trading market. These may be important issues but they are also abstract and removed from the lives of voters. As Professor Cees Van der Eijk argues "the media pays very little attention to European elections. EU actors are generally invisible, and the elections are labelled boring even before they take place". [1]
To make matters worse each individual vote is worth much less in European than national elections making it more difficult to explain why the individual should vote. In Germany there are more than six times more Bundestag members than there are Germany MEPs. [2] By starting young people out on ‘boring’ elections that are about people and institutions they will never have heard of and have little relevance to young people’s daily lives lowering the voting age would be damaging to turn out. This would be damage not just for European elections but also to other levels as young people will be scared off all levels of politics by their experience of the European elections.
[1] Miller, Vaughne, ‘2009 European Parliament Elections: parties, polls and recent developments’, House of Commons, 29 January 2009, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04954.pdf , p.9
[2] Deutscher Bunderstag, ‘Facts The Bundestag at a glance’, Deutscher Bunderstag, August 2011, https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80140000.pdf"
Candidate 17: "An opportunity for civic studies
There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.
Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.
[1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/Food_for_Thought/Eurobarometer.html
[2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011, http://www.oegpw.at/tagung2011/papers/1C_Zeglovits.pdf p.13"
| This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example – why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?
|
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: there are lots of non-tariff barriers with the deal done with the EU
Proposition2: there would be no non-tariff barriers with the deal done with the EU | Default Conflict |
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: Foreign aid benefits the United States
While foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for example Cargill was paid $96million for supplying food aid in 2010-11. [1] Secondly there are also indirect benefits. Through the work of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Obama administration hopes to “develop partnerships with countries committed to enabling the private sector investment that is the basis of sustained economic growth to open new markets for American goods, promote trade overseas, and create jobs here at home”. [2] Essentially, through foreign aid, both the economies of the developing world and the United States come out ahead. Even Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has been quoted as saying that the 1 percent the United States spends on foreign aid “not only saves millions of lives, it has an enormous impact on developing countries – which means it has an impact on our economy”. [3]
[1] Provost, Claire, and Lawrence, Felicity, ‘US food aid programme criticised as ‘corporate welfare’ for grain giants’, guardian.co.uk, 18 July 2012.
[2] ‘What we do’, USAID, 12 September 2012.
[3] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.
Candidate 1: "Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach international markets. Freer trade has not obviously been a driver of growth; poverty has fallen while the Doha round of trade liberalisation has got nowhere. [1] Instead the policies that have succeeded for China have been mercantilist policies, China may rely on trade to export its goods but it succeeded in creating its manufacturing capacity because of currency manipulation and government subsidies, things that anyone for free trade would be against. [2]
[1] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.
[2] Prestowitz, Clyde, ‘China’s not breaking the rules. It’s playing a different game.’, Foreign Policy, 17 February 2012."
Candidate 2: "Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent on foreign aid.
It is also wrong to assert that the US government debt is borrowing money from China as most government borrowing comes from the US private sector. [2] China owns a mere 9.3% of US government debt with the majority being owed either to US individuals and institutions (41.7%) or to the Social Security Trust Fund (17.1%). [3]
[1] Geiger, Jacob, ‘Barak Obama says foreign aid makes up 1 percent of U.S. budget’, Tampa Bay Times, 13 April 2011.
[2] Krugman, Paul, ‘Fear-of-China Syndrome’, The New York Times, 30 August 2012.
[3] ‘Who Owns U.S. Debt’, RealClearPolicy, 2 April 2012."
Candidate 3: "It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.
[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.
[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011."
Candidate 4: "While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.
[1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012."
Candidate 5: "The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]
The United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: "There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom." [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]
[1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.
[2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.
[3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.
[4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE."
Candidate 6: "Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]
[1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.
[2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012."
Candidate 7: "Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]
[1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.
[2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011."
| While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.
[1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012.
|
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: Healthcare
Quote: The Queen doesn't allow them to get sick. ;)
Response: And you are on intimate terms with the Queen, eh? emoticonXDonno\nBy the way, what is it exactly that that little thingy above signifies?\nI hope I have used the right emotive whatchamacallit. | -0.2 |
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: Invited by the legitimate government
President Yanukovych is Ukraine’s legitimate President. He is therefore perfectly at liberty to allow Russian troops into his country to keep the peace in much the same way as countries around the world welcome US troops on their soil as protection from external threats or UN peacekeepers to keep the peace domestically. Yanukovych in a letter to Putin called “on the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order, stability and defending the people of Ukraine.” [1]
[1] ‘Yanukovich sent letter to Putin asking for Russian military presence in Ukraine’, RT, 3 March 2014
Candidate 1: "Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. [1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim.
[1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994
[2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999"
Candidate 2: "“Ukraine is not [only] our closest neighbour, it is our fraternal nation... we will not go to war with the Ukrainian people.” [1] There have been no shots fired and the action is not a hostile act, it is simply to protect the Crimeans. Russia has not engaged in an armed attack as the forces in Crimea have not fired a shot.
[1] Siddique, 2014"
Candidate 3: "This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case.
On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2]
[1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014
[2] Fraser, 2014"
Candidate 4: "Negotiating with the new government would mean recognising it. Russia may well recognise a new government after elections are held and the government is once more legitimate but until then there is little to negotiate. Moreover elections must be held only when there is stability. At the moment Russia won’t recognise any elections because they would be held under a situation of terror where “there is the danger that a fascist element will come to the fore, and some anti-semite will come to power.” [1]
[1] Siddique, 2014"
Candidate 5: "“Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power. [1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”. [2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive.
While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people.
[1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014
[2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014"
Candidate 6: "While there has been some economic fallout for Russia this is likely to only be temporary, as the risk of actual conflict goes away the markets will return to normal. There is almost no chance that there will be any sanctions that do real damage because much of Europe is dependent on Russia for gas; Germany gets around 39% of its gas from Russia, and this accounts for almost 9% of its energy consumption and other smaller economies in Eastern Europe are even more dependent. [1] Impose sanctions and Russia could squeeze gas supplies.
[1] Ratner, Michael et al., ‘Europe’s Energy Security: Options and Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification’, Congressional Research Service, 20 August 2013, p.10"
Candidate 7: "Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation.
The coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days. [1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament [2] this is what the Parliament has done.
[1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014
[2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 & 10), wikisource, 2004 , 2010"
Candidate 8: "This action by Russia shows (once again) that the consequences of violating international norms is practically zero. As such the action damages the credibility of that norm, especially when applied to a powerful state like Russia. [1] The main problem is Russia is a member of these organisations; as a Security Council member the UN can do nothing, similarly it is blocking a full scale monitoring mission by the OSCE. [2] As for the G8, a talking shop, is Putin really likely to care? [3]
[1] Ku, Julian, ‘Russia Reminds the World (and International Lawyers) of the Limits of International Law’, Opinio Juris, 2 March 2014
[2] AFP, 2014
[3] Judah, 2014"
Candidate 9: "Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise.
Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external. [1]
[1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217"
Candidate 10: "Russia is hardly the first nation to send troops across a border without UN Security Council support, indeed there is quite a list; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo. All undertaken by western powers. Russia is not threatening the use of force it is simply guaranteeing that its citizens will not come to harm and putting the military on standby just in case such protection is necessary."
| This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council. [1] This has not been forthcoming in this case.
On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases. [2]
[1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014
[2] Fraser, 2014
|
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "if petrol and fuel taxation are raised, people might hesitate choosing a personal automobile", target argumentative component: "Taxation may have tackled the environmental issue simply by diverting people to public transportations such as trains, buses or ferries" | support |
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: Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Response: Uhm, where does this say that the earth rotates? Nowhere. Simply speaking of morning or dawn does not show knowledge of earth's rotation. In today's world it does, but not back then. \nIn fact, the verse our Creationist conveniently left out says the the Earth has edges ... this is probably more flat earth mentality, like the four-cornered earth mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.\nPS: And while we're at it, let's not forget about the things that Bible gets completely wrong, like bats being birds (Leviticus 11:13-18). | -1.0 |
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: Gender Equality at university admission
Nowadays men and women are equally participating in every field. Contrastingly, in the past time, women worked at home and performed sophisticated work. This factor is still affecting thinking of many people. They still believe that in present time women must do such type of work only. This tendency enforces universities to accept student according to the gender.
Universities should accept equal numbers of students of both genders. Initially, if we look into the fact, women have proved themselves in every field whether it is indoor or outdoor. For example, nowadays women are working in home as well as in the sky. They are acting as a good housewife and they are flying planes also. Furthermore, university authority must not be biased on ground of the gender discrimination. They must consider the academic record of the student as main criteria of admission.
However, the current job market affects the decision of universities. Every university designs its courses according to the need of employers. The job selection criteria are pre decided. For instance employers need male candidates for the heavy work such as repairing and installation of heavy machine. They prefer male staff for night shifts. They want female candidates for soft natured work like counseling, teaching, designing etc. Therefore, universities follow the requirement of job providers and decide subject suitable for particular gender.
To conclude, I strongly believe that universities must open choice for everyone to select his subject. Our youth has become very confident towards his career. They are not ready to be bound in certain limitations. Female candidates also do not care about any restriction posed by the society and the employer. So we must give them opportunity to achieve their goal.
Argumentative components: universities must open choice for everyone to select his subject
we must give them opportunity to achieve their goal
Our youth has become very confident towards his career
They are not ready to be bound in certain limitations
Female candidates also do not care about any restriction posed by the society and the employer
Universities should accept equal numbers of students of both genders
women have proved themselves in every field whether it is indoor or outdoor
nowadays women are working in home as well as in the sky
They are acting as a good housewife and they are flying planes also
university authority must not be biased on ground of the gender discrimination
They must consider the academic record of the student as main criteria of admission
universities follow the requirement of job providers and decide subject suitable for particular gender
the current job market affects the decision of universities
Every university designs its courses according to the need of employers
The job selection criteria are pre decided
employers need male candidates for the heavy work such as repairing and installation of heavy machine
They prefer male staff for night shifts
They want female candidates for soft natured work like counseling, teaching, designing etc | Major claims:
universities must open choice for everyone to select his subject
Claims:
universities must open choice for everyone to select his subject
we must give them opportunity to achieve their goal
Universities should accept equal numbers of students of both genders
universities follow the requirement of job providers and decide subject suitable for particular gender
Premises:
Our youth has become very confident towards his career
They are not ready to be bound in certain limitations
Female candidates also do not care about any restriction posed by the society and the employer
women have proved themselves in every field whether it is indoor or outdoor
nowadays women are working in home as well as in the sky
They are acting as a good housewife and they are flying planes also
university authority must not be biased on ground of the gender discrimination
They must consider the academic record of the student as main criteria of admission
the current job market affects the decision of universities
Every university designs its courses according to the need of employers
The job selection criteria are pre decided
employers need male candidates for the heavy work such as repairing and installation of heavy machine
They prefer male staff for night shifts
They want female candidates for soft natured work like counseling, teaching, designing etc |
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: There is no evidence of medical records, the girlfriend coming out, any credible witnesses, etc. That's why. Did you hear Kerry's latest flip flop?
Response: Bush has flip flopped just as much as Kerry. As for records, there is next to nothing showing that Bush actually showed up and did anything for the Guard.\n | -0.833333 |
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: I was just following your logic to its ultimate logical conclusion. Liberals don't give a damn about individual freedom; they want governmental control over all aspects of your life. They want gov't control of healthcare because they think we're too dumb to fend for ourselves. They want to indoctrinate our kids in school because they don't trust parents to be parents. The list of liberal intrusisms into our lives is endless.
Response: That is just conservative bias. Conservatives are just as guilty of the same things as liberals and then each has their own ideological idiocy that is unique to each group. Conservatives like classes and don't like change. A pure conservative society would fail just as quickly as a pure liberal one. The last 10 - 20 years as we have become more us vs. them the overall prosperity and well being of the country has declined. With both sides taking the country to extremes. Conservatives eased restrictions and corporations run wild. Those laws are in place for a reason. Liberals overreact and put a choke hold on growth. There was a reason for less restrictive laws, but now they can't do anything meaningful.\n | -0.333333 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "the dullness of course may deeply influence their passion on study", target argumentative component: "this education model can cultivate more talents who specialized in different areas and increase studying effectiveness" | attack |
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
Wang and Ma’ayan introduced an RNA-seq pipeline tutorial using IPython notebook and a Docker image.
Specifically, the authors applied the pipeline to analyze data from a recent Zika virus study.
The authors found that their pipeline not only confirms the down-regulated cell cycle genes, but also uncovers a set of genes with a biological function that potentially associated with a particular phenotype.
While the work and context sound interesting, there are several concerns that need to be addressed or discussed:
- This reviewer really liked the approach that the authors have taken to showcase analysis.
I wish more researchers adopt this methodology.
- This could be a great way to do additional analysis easily..
I wonder if authors can look into additional RNASeq pipelines and compare/contrast how Jupiter-friendly they are.
Minor comments:
The clustering (in Figure 1) is based on z-score and the 800 genes serve well to cluster the samples into two different groups.
Was z-scores close to zero excluded as they are uninformative?
Was FDR applied? | Structure
Recap
Recap
Recap
Other
Strength
Other
Other
Todo
Structure
Recap
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: Deborah Frances-White : His first response was not to say: This cannot stand
Proposition: Sir Keir Starmer's first response was not to say: This cannot stand | Restating |
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: That's horrible. That's part of why I'm for abortion, the result of making it illegal.
Response: did you miss the part where it is... the attempt to abort. which kills the women.\nit is not child birth that kills those women.\nit is an attempt to abort.\nif they didnt try and kill their baby.. they would not of died.\nHaving a child, is not a trajedy... its just part of life.\nits not a wrongful burden... or a flaw of existance.. its nature.\ndah... do you even read what is being posted?\n | 0.0 |
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. | United Nations secretary general António Guterres has warned that the world is facing “a direct existential threat” and must rapidly shift from dependence on fossil fuels by 2020 to prevent “runaway climate change”. | Guterres warned that the world is facing “a direct existential threat” and must rapidly shift from dependence on fossil fuels to prevent “runaway climate change”. |
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
These analyses of potential cross reactive CD8 T cell epitopes between the current SARS-CoV-2 and “seasonal” endemic human CoV is useful and timely and the discussion is balanced.
There are several modifications that I believe would improve the clarify and value of the manuscript.
Based on the first sentence of the paragraph entitled “the possibility of matching linear epitopes…”, the authors sate that the two major arms of immune memory…are antibody and CD8 T cells”
I believe this is incorrect, as CD4 T cells can directly impact lung pathology and contribute to both protective and pathological immune responses.
In fact a recent paper uploaded to BioRxiv suggested that it was populations in the CD4 T cell compartments that correlated with disease severity.
The authors should acknowledge that all three subsets of the adaptive response (B cells, CD8 and CD4 T cells) are likely to be important, but this manuscript focusses on CD8 epitopes.
The authors refer to the “software owners” when describing cutoffs.
They are perhaps better described as software “designers”.
When discussing “Vaccine Potential”, the authors state that the secondary response is “faster and stronger”.
This should be more accurately described, with some references, in a way that points out the higher frequency of responding cells during memory recall, and lower thresholds of TcR engagement needed for T cell activation, both qualities that contribute to a competitive advantage of memory cells.
Because the nature of CD8 memory to the different antigens screened by the authors is not known, the epitopes identified may or may not be targets of cross reactive memory recall.
Therefore, the word “expected” should be substituted for “Potential” or some other word that indicates that the epitope list includes candidates but not expected epitopes.
I think the Table could be made quite a lot smaller and thus more valuable to the reader.
The source proteins could be indicated as an abbreviation provided in the legend as could the various seasonal strains.
The boxes could then be quite small, and either be positive or negative.
In any case, an effort should be made to condense this table. | Structure
Strength
Other
Recap
Weakness
Other
Todo
Recap
Todo
Recap
Todo
Recap
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
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 agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: Lately, it\xe2\x80\x99s been tough for us Christians. From Elton John to best-selling books, one of which calls God a \xe2\x80\x9cdelusion\xe2\x80\x9d,faith is under attack. Well, I have news for atheists, they\xe2\x80\x99re the ones who are deluded! Because God exists \xe2\x80\x93 He made the universe \xe2\x80\x93 I\xe2\x80\x99m 100% sure of it. How do I know? From the Bible, \xe2\x80\x9cIn the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. It says so right there on page one of the book God himself says he wrote. Checkmate!
Response: Not too bad so far, if we overlook the word arrangement of a 13 year old valley girl, spoken in the voice of a gay 21 year old college student. So far I'm fooled, but suspicious. Moving on;\n | -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 attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: The latter, of course. I\'m not anti-marriage. In fact I\'ve been "institutionalized" with the same woman for 26 great years so far. I just don\'t see the benefits to society for promoting gay marriage. All I see are increased chances for abuse of the law, additional costs and a promotion of a lifestyle that I , personally, believe is deviant. (not deviant as in "sinister", but in the sense of "abnormal") But that\'s not to say that I\'m closed minded and can\'t be persuaded otherwise. There are other things that I consider deviant, but can tolerate, none-the-less.
Response: Well, it may surprise you that I believe that it is deviant to believe that same-sex marriage is immoral (in the sense that it is abnormal). This is because I believe that it is normal for most people to want to treat others the way they wish to be treated themselves. I believe it is normal for others to work toward the happiness of others, especially when that happiness does not interfere with their own happiness. But it does not follow for me that one can oppose same-sex marriage and follow those rules. It seems to me that people have been told or told themselves that same-sex marriage is bad for so long that they have sort of convinced themselves to deviate from human compassion on this one issue. Well, I suppose what I just said doesn\'t really mean much of anything, just that someone who want to spend his or her life with the one he or she loves does not qualify as "deviant" behavior in my book. It is not something that must be "tolerated", it is something that should be enjoyed for the good present in its nature.\nYou wrote that you do not see the benefits of same-sex marriage. I know I went into the benefits of allowing same-sex couples to adopt, but I also spoke on same-sex marriage promoting equality, freedom, and happiness. Let me expand on that.\nEquality seems very simple to explain. Currently those who love someone of the opposite sex and choose to enter a relationship with that person are granted a set of benefits under the law. This same set of benefits could be extended to those who love someone of the same sex, but it is not, and they are still forced to pay any costs in taxes that salary cuts from businesses that might be accrued through these benefits being bestowed upon someone else. This simple fact violates equality, and I think this is clear and easy to understand. What may not be clear is why equality is so imporant. Granting a set of rights to one group of people that another does not have elevate the first group over the second. The more equality is removed, the more one group is elevated over the other and the more that first group is leeching off of the second group. If the first group could provide those same bonuses to the second group without causing any real harm, the first group is obligated to do so. For the powerful to take things for themselves that they could just as easily share with the weak crosses the line of moral evil.\nFreedom might be a bit more difficult to understand. Though the government is not granting the same set of benefits that it gives opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples, it is not actually taking any anyone\'s freedom to behave in the manner they please. Or is it? By benefiting one lifestyle over another, the government is directly promoting that specific lifestyle. Taken to the extreme, the government could just as easily imprision those who don\'t live the way the government commands and claim that those people have complete freedom, they just don\'t have the "benefit" of walking around that other people get. The lack of these benefits could be considered a fine for not living the way the government intends, or more accurately, the government is promoting one lifestyle over another. To any extent which the government does this, we all lose a bit of freedom to behave in the manner that we want. Of course there are good reasons to restrict freedom, taking into consideration murder and stealing, however those are actions that cause harm to people; they are restricted to protect the rights of others, to stop harm. I do not think that any of the reasons you listed are harms that opposite-sex marriage does not also imply, and I think most of the harms you listed are not really harms at all as explained above. In fact, same-sex marriage brings plenty of benefits (again, as I explained above). This in no way warrants the restriction of freedom.\nFinally I come to happiness: this is the end of all governments. Governments exist to make as many of their citizens as happy as possible, or at least give them all as much an opportunity to persue happiness as they can. The ideas of freedom and equality are really only a means to help people achieve happiness, to help the achieve the best standard of living they can, to help them be able to do the things in life they want to do, to help people in any way they can. With same-sex marriage, we have the opportunity to help a set of people without bringing harm to anyone. We have the power to give the same rights that we hold to a group of people different from ourselves. We have an opportunity to help people, and I am forced to conclude that we cannot call ourselves equal, we cannot call ourselves the land of the free, and we cannot call ourselves a morally good society if we do not take that opportunity. | 0.333333 |
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. | According to scientific theory, the destruction of Earth is a certainty. About five billion years from now, when our sun exhausts its nuclear fuel, it will expand in size and envelope the inner planets, including Earth, and burn them into oblivion. So yes, we are doomed, but we have five billion years, plus or minus a few hundred million, to plan our extraterrestrial escape. The need to colonize the moon or Mars to guarantee our survival is not pressing. There are also real risks due to collisions with asteroids and comets, although none are of immediate threat and do not necessitate extraterrestrial colonization. There are many Earth-based technological strategies that can be developed in time to mediate such astronomical threats, such as gravitational tugboats that drag the objects out of range. The solar system could also potentially be exposed to galactic sources of high-energy gamma ray bursts that could fry all life on Earth; any moon or Mars base would face a similar fate. Thus, human-based colonies on the moon or Mars would not protect us from any of these astronomical threats in the near future. | yes, we are doomed, but we have five billion years, plus or minus a few hundred million, to plan our extraterrestrial escape. The need to colonize the moon or Mars to guarantee our survival is not pressing. There are risks due to collisions with asteroids although none are of immediate threat and do not necessitate extraterrestrial colonization. There are many Earth-based technological strategies that can be developed in time to mediate such astronomical threats, such as gravitational tugboats that drag the objects out of range |
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: It harms the economies of developing world
The current model of CAP results in major oversupply of food and beverages. In 2008 the stockpiles of cereals rising to 717 810 tons while the surplus of wine was about 2.3 million hectolitres. [1] This excess of supply is then often sold to developing countries for prices so low that the local producers cannot cope with them. The low prices of European food can be attributed to the higher efficiency of producing food because of use of advanced technologies as well as the CAP. Agriculture makes a small fraction of GDP in Europe, but in developing countries of Africa or Asia it is entirely different with large numbers dependent on much smaller plots of land. Hence, the consequences of CAP and high production in the EU can be the rise of unemployment and decline of self-sufficiency of these affected countries.
[1] Castle, Stephen, ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The New York Times, 2 February 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/europe/22iht-union.4.19606951.html
Candidate 1: "The costs of starting and maintaining business in agriculture vary among European countries as well – the costs of additional materials can be much cheaper in for example Poland than in France. The costs of life vary among European countries as well. Subsidies which are sufficient for Polish farmers to live a decent life are simply not enough for French one. If one of the reasons behind this policy is to preserve traditional ways of life, then part of the role is to keep farmers out of relative poverty as well.
Also the current reform of CAP address these issues – the conditions for all countries should converge in the next years as there is a change replacing the Single Payment Scheme with a basic payment scheme. [1] It is a matter of setting the system right – not giving up on it altogether. Even for farmers in discriminated countries, it is far better that they receive some benefits than no benefits at all.
[1] European Commission, ‘establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy’, Europa.eu, 19 October 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com625/625_en.pdf p.7"
Candidate 2: "The importance of agricultural industry cannot be valued on the merit of how much percent of GDP it creates. It is one of the industries that are vital for the society as whole – without food the society cannot properly function. In the case of complicated world we are now living in food security – the ability to be self-sufficient in producing food at least to some degree – is important. Also agriculture is not the only industry which is subsidised – the subsidies to other industries such as coal and steel come directly from member states’ budget and not EU’s. Thus for example Germany subsidizes car production by about $1300 per vehicle. [1] The 40% figure is therefore deceptively high as it is the only industry through which subsidies go through the EU budget rather than individual member states.
[1] Davison, Remy, ‘Far from pole on car subsidy grid’, Business Spectator, 26 July 2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/26/industries/far-pole-car-subsidy-grid"
Candidate 3: "Developing countries often face a problem when the local people simply cannot afford food (for example as a result of drought or floods destroying local crops) – thus giving them food for greatly reduced price helps a lot of people to survive at day to day basis. Even for farmers they are unlikely to grow the full range of crops so benefit from being able to obtain cheap foodstuffs. These countries can also if they wish control their import tariffs to ensure that the price of European food is comparable to local one – it is not that they are entirely helpless. The local producers have other benefits given by European Union – reduced taxation on exported agricultural products and development help – which help to compensate for these possible detrimental effects. Even without these programs, EU is still the biggest importer of foodstuff from the developing world by a big margin – therefore in balance the developing countries still receive more than lose by these seldom exports from EU."
Candidate 4: "Even the larger companies can have difficulties in a market in which their consumers, the supermarkets, have so much power over prices. The result is often that supermarkets buy their produce at below the cost of production – as is happening with milk in the UK where it costs 30p per litre to produce but they are only being paid 25p per litre. [1] The costs of producing food in Europe even with mechanisation can be high because of the expensive workforce, and smaller farms on average than in the US. Therefore subsidies to larger companies are needed to keep even larger farmers in business. Often the larger companies involve smaller producers who produce the original, unique specialties and enjoy the stability of larger firm. It is hard to say that support of these companies is not useful.
[1] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Milk prices row and how the system works’, 23 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18951422"
| Developing countries often face a problem when the local people simply cannot afford food (for example as a result of drought or floods destroying local crops) – thus giving them food for greatly reduced price helps a lot of people to survive at day to day basis. Even for farmers they are unlikely to grow the full range of crops so benefit from being able to obtain cheap foodstuffs. These countries can also if they wish control their import tariffs to ensure that the price of European food is comparable to local one – it is not that they are entirely helpless. The local producers have other benefits given by European Union – reduced taxation on exported agricultural products and development help – which help to compensate for these possible detrimental effects. Even without these programs, EU is still the biggest importer of foodstuff from the developing world by a big margin – therefore in balance the developing countries still receive more than lose by these seldom exports from EU.
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: marijuana legalization
Stance: PRO
Aspect: violence | I think legalizing marijuana could be very beneficial to society overall , especially when compared to alcohol and tobacco ( two legal substances ) , both of which have proven time and again to cause addiction , health problems , birth defects , mental illness , violent behavior , liver disease , cancer , stroke , etc . |
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: Urbanisation without industrialisation, the dangerous livelihoods of migrants.
Across Africa a reality of ‘urbanisation without industrialisation’ is found (Potts, 2012). Economic growth, and activity, have not matched the urban phenomena across Sub-Saharan Africa. The sombre picture of urban economics questions - what do new migrants do as opportunities are not found?
More than 50% of Youth in Africa are unemployed or idle. [1] With migrants entering urban environments presented with a lack of safe and secure jobs unhealthy sexual politics are found, and precarious methods are used to make a living. The scarcity of formal jobs, means a majority of migrants are forced to work in informal employment. Informal employment will continue to rise creating its own problems such as being barrier to imposing minimum wages and employment security.
[1] Zuehlke, 2009
Candidate 1: "Positives arise from a predominantly male out-migration. Women are provided with a means of strategic, and practical, empowerment - as power is redistributed within the household. Women are placed in a position whereby capital assets and time can be controlled personally [1] .
[1] For more on the debate see: Chant (2009); Datta and McIlwaine (2000)."
Candidate 2: "Free movement will provide benefits for productivity.
A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets.
Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] .
[1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU."
Candidate 3: "Policies towards a free labour market will create unity.
National borders are a result of Africa’s colonial history. The boundaries constructed do not reflect meaning or unite ethnic groups across the continent. The border between Togo and Ghana alone divides the Dagomba, Akposso, Konkomba and Ewe peoples. [1] Therefore encouraging freedom of movement across Africa will erase a vital component of Africa’s colonial history.
The erasing of boundaries, for labour markets, will have significant impacts for rebuilding a sense of unity, and reducing xenophobic fears, of which have been politically constructed.
A sense of unity will motivate citizens to reduce disparities and inequalities of poverty.
[1] Cogneau, 2012, pp.5-6"
Candidate 4: "Migration is 'developmental'.
Recent reports by the HDR (2009) and WDR (2009) have shown migration is a means of development – free movement has the power to alleviate poverty, enable markets, and connectivity. Taking recent evidence concerning worldwide remittance flows, the developmental nature of free movement is shown.
In 2013, it is estimated, through international migration, $414bn were remitted back to developing countries [1] . Remittance flows into Africa (from within and internationally) accounted for $40bn in 2010, accounting for an increasing percentage of GDP (AfDB, 2013; IFAD, 2013). Northern Africa articulated the largest total of remittances received. Remittances remain beneficial for supporting livelihoods. The influx of remittances to households provides security, an additional income for support, enables household consumption, and investment in alternative assets, such as education and land, of which present crucial benefits in reducing poverty. Although the geography of remittances remains uneven, and currently barriers remain to sending and receiving money, the developmental potential of remittances from African diasporas (both outside and within Africa) is now recognised [2] .
[1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.
[2] For additional information on the debate of migration, remittances and social development see further readings: De Haas, 2010."
Candidate 5: "The prevalence of trafficking across Africa today is not new so it is likely a free labour market will make little difference. Further, uncertainty remains as to whether or not the extent of human trafficking is actually rising. With the exact number of cases unknown [1] - are concerns sensationalised hype or a growing reality?
[1] See further readings: IRINb, 2013."
Candidate 6: "Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative."
Candidate 7: "The freedom to move is a human right.
Mobility is a human right - which needs to be enabled across national spaces and Africa. Obstacles need to be removed. Mobility enables access to interconnected rights - such as ensuring women their right to move enables empowerment in the political, social and economic spheres.
Taking the case of migration of young people, the process reflects a right of passage, a means of exploring opportunities and identity.For example the Mourides of Senegal have established a dense network sustaining informal trading across multiple scales based on a foundation of ‘Brotherhood’ youths leaving rural areas become integrated into dynamic social networks and educated within the Mouride culture. As research in Tanzania shows although migration is not a priority for all youths, many identify the opportunity as a time to prove yourself and establish your transition into adulthood. The process empowers human identity and rights."
Candidate 8: "Implementing a free labour market will enable effective management of migration.
Even without the implementation of a free labour market, migration will continue informally; therefore policies introducing free movement and providing appropriate travel documents provides a method to manage migration. In the case of Southern Africa, the lack of a regional framework enabling migration is articulated through the informal nature of movement and strategic bilateral ties between nation-states.
Several benefits arise from managing migration. First, speeding up the emigration process will provide health benefits. Evidence shows slow, and inefficient, border controls have led to a rise in HIV/AIDs; as truck drivers wait in delays sex is offered [1] . Second, a free labour market can provide national governments with data and information. The provision of travel documentation provides migrants with an identity, and as movement is monitored, the big picture of migration can be provided. Information, evidence, and data, will enable effective policies to be constructed for places of origin and destination, and to enable trade efficiency. Lastly, today, undocumented migrants are unable to claim their right to health care. In Africa, availability does not equate to accessibility for new migrants. In South Africa, migrants fear deportation and harassment, meaning formal health treatment and advice is not sought (Human Rights Watch, 2009). Therefore documentation and formal approval of movement ensures health is recognised as an equal right.
[1] See further readings: Lucas, 2012."
| Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative.
|
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: Marriage should be between a man and a woman
Marriage has always been viewed by society as the religious and/or civil union between a man and a woman, and has therefore always been regarded primarily as a heterosexual institution. It confirms the natural truth that marriage, as the traditional rite of passage required before procreation, requires a man and a woman. Barack Obama, whilst on the presidential campaign trial, reaffirmed his personal belief that marriage 'is between a man and a woman', one that he shared with the majority of candidates1. Indeed, marriage, throughout its thousands of years of existence, has only been used to describe the union of a man and woman, toward the general end of starting a family and raising children.
1 Elsworth, C. (2008, November 3). Barack Obama: 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Telegraph:
Candidate 1: "The argument that gay marriage, or even the discussion of it, leads to a decline in the institution of marriage does not match with the figures. Far from leading to an increase in divorce rates, marriage in the last decade is only growing stronger. As Adam Sullivan points out, in the United States, roughly 75% per cent of those who have married since 1990 reported they had reached their 10-year anniversary. That’s up about three percentage points for those who had married a decade earlier in the 1980s’ 1. Though this is not proof that marriage equality has strengthened the bonds of marriage, it is proof that marriage equality is not undermining them. Further to that, ‘it was heterosexuals who in the 1970s changed marriage into something more like a partnership between equals…with gender roles less rigid than in the past’ 1. In contrast, there are good arguments to suggest gay marriage could re-affirm pre-70s notions of marriage for it would initially be more likely to attract older, long-term gay couples whose stability would thereafter ripple through society 1.
1. Sullivan, 2011"
Candidate 2: "The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.
1 Olson, T., & Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News:"
Candidate 3: "Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion.
1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter"
Candidate 4: "It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry
One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality.
1.The Economist, 1996
2.Olson, 2010
3. Black, 2011"
Candidate 5: "It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.
Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.
1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist"
Candidate 6: "Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage
To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones.
1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:"
Candidate 7: "State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples
The state is charged with the responsibility of both providing registrars to conduct marriage ceremonies and authenticating marriages certificates. If gay marriage was to be legalized, all registrars could be thereafter forced, by the state and their commitment to the law, to legally bind themselves to avoid discriminating between homosexual and heterosexual couples who ask for their service. All registrars who refused to marry homosexual couples could be fired. There could be no difference in the process or the paperwork required for either a heterosexual or homosexual marriage. The dismissal of discriminating registrants would have a legal precedent in the charges brought upon hotel owners who refused gay couples and adoption agencies who refused to deal with gay couples."
Candidate 8: "Gay marriage is good for society
Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness.
1. Ott, (2005)
2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25
3. Kostigen, (2009)"
Candidate 9: "Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.
It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes. There are many married couples in society today who do not have children of their own, often by choice, and infertile couples, who cannot conceive children, are still permitted to marry. They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or humanity as a whole. In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society's view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments. Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors. It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children, or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are evidently false."
| It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.
Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.
1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist
|
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: I'm not sure what your point is. You mistake rodensia for piltdown. You cite Woodward, a known fraud. None of this is represented in the theory.
Response: lol...you read my whole post only to conclude with "what\'s your point." Evolutionist brilliance on display. I\'m not mistaking nothing for nothing. I know my stuff. You obviously know nothing and don\'t care to learn it. | -1.2 |
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 approval is needed for the Scottish government as well
Proposition2: breaking up the problem needs the approval so you’re not wasting vaccines | Default Conflict |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | George Washington, as a person, doesn't live up to our moral standards, but he represents our freedom from England. Confederate statues, on the other hand, represent the Confederacy. The Confederacy does not deserve to be memorialized. | If the monuments were put up for the purpose of glorification of history, then they are a glorification of history. |
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 democracy was forced on to the Afghans
Proposition2: we have seen the demand for the democracy from a quarter of the members of the jirga, the Afghan parliament, women | Default Conflict |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Languages' extinction, discuss both views
It is true that the increasing number of languages which are at risk of extinction has become one of the most significant issues that many people of today's society are very concerned for. The question whether our government should make an effort to preserve them by investing more money on that minority languages or not is still a debatable one. I personally suppose that no matter how widely they are spoken, every language should be protected from being disappeared.
There are several reasons why saving regional languages could be seen as a waste of money. Firstly, we need to consider that if the government expands the use scope of that languages, it can be really expensive because educational programmes will need to be given so as to keep young people learning and using them. For example, some certain areas in the Southern Vietnam have been trying to help their secondary school students who are originally from khmer people speak their language beside Vietnamese, so the local government has recently struggled with their costly investments on language teachers, facilities and appropriate materials. Secondly, it is obvious that in many aspects such as communication, trade, cooperation as well as transaction, it will be absolutely easier for the whole society to work together in one language only.
Despite of the above arguments, i still strongly believe that the government should try to preserve minority languages. This is because language can be seen as much more than just one method of communication. In addition, forming a language must be undergone thousands of years; thus, it deserves to be respected and preserved. Last but not least, language is one of the essential factors creating the differences and unique cutures in the world. Therefore, saving the use of that kinds of languages in this case generally is the most important element of the cultural diversity's preservation.
In conclusion, although letting languages spoken by ethnic minorities be extinct seems to be very beneficial, it will definitely impact seriously on many other aspects especially in the loss of our cultural heritages. | no matter how widely they are spoken, every language should be protected from being disappeared
letting languages spoken by ethnic minorities be extinct seems to be very beneficial
it will definitely impact seriously on many other aspects especially in the loss of our cultural heritages
we need to consider that if the government expands the use scope of that languages, it can be really expensive
educational programmes will need to be given so as to keep young people learning and using them
some certain areas in the Southern Vietnam have been trying to help their secondary school students who are originally from khmer people speak their language beside Vietnamese
the local government has recently struggled with their costly investments on language teachers, facilities and appropriate materials
in many aspects such as communication, trade, cooperation as well as transaction, it will be absolutely easier for the whole society to work together in one language only
saving regional languages could be seen as a waste of money
the government should try to preserve minority languages
language can be seen as much more than just one method of communication
forming a language must be undergone thousands of years
it deserves to be respected and preserved
language is one of the essential factors creating the differences and unique cutures in the world
saving the use of that kinds of languages in this case generally is the most important element of the cultural diversity's preservation |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: nuclear energy
Stance: PRO
Aspect: risk | But as far as I know , there was never any serious threat of radiation leak into the environment because they were underground and not exposed to outside world , so there was no point of having such high security around them ... Also , most people do n't realize that nuclear power does n't have those kind of risks . |
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: Yeah, that kind of is the whole point of the joke, seeing both sides of the argument (creationists/evolutionist) it only seemed fair to make fun of them both. Notice though, that there's no pro-religious people protesting out at this joke, they must have a sense of humour?emoticonXAngel
Response: I don\'t see anyone protesting at this "joke." A good joke is at least based on some reality. | 0.0 |
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: Indeed true. God created man in his own likeness and man returned the favor. Man created a vindictive, vengeful, and vicious god, according to the Bible. So where does a loving god come from?
Response: The character of God seems to be in the eye of the beholder... Or non-existant. emoticonXHoho | 25.0 |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "Students can learn about time management, money management and convince people by their words", argumentative component 2: "students can learn lots of things from part time job, before starting their real job" | Yes |
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? | affirmative action gives opportunities to those that have incurred discrimination and have been overlooked for wok, education, etc due to their minority class. | 0.736129284 |
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: Well done, martini guy! ;)
Response: Actually not.\n | -3.33333 |
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: Anas Sarwar : No
Proposition: in the first year capital investment is not as much as the long term investment | Disagreeing |
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: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...5/nabort15.xml
Response: I think that I don't have quite enough Tobasco in my Bloody Mary. emoticonXWow | -0.2 |
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: On issues such as gay marriage, human rights activists have taken the line that the right to marry is nobody else’s business. That principle of privacy should work both ways.
Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them. [1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories.
If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable.
If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news.
[1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10th August 2012, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Candidate 1: "A liberal bias among the journalistic elite in the West is hardly reason for changing the editorial policies of news outlets in nations that do not share those values. The first duty of the journalist must be their role as the eyes and ears of those for whom they do their reporting – the readers and viewers who both directly and indirectly pay their salaries. As a result, there is a duty on journalists not only to report those issues of interest to that group but to avoid those issues which their customers consider either irrelevant or distasteful."
Candidate 2: "Journalism should report the experiences of the vulnerable and oppressed just as much as those of the elite and powerful.
The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”. [1]
[1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes, http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2012"
Candidate 3: "Broadcasters almost never show scenes of torture or torment because they know this will cause offence, the same principle should apply here.
Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives [1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement [2] . Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech.
It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership. [3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs. [4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact.
[1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node44.html
[2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy.
[3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html?pagewanted=print
[4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, http://extras.journalnow.com/pdfs/2009/04/17/plaisance_deppa_mono.pdf"
Candidate 4: "This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.
Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue."
Candidate 5: "All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid.
Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.” [1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook, [2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit.
[1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91.
[2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/watergate"
Candidate 6: "The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened.
It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.
News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.
[1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.
[2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars, http://globalmediawars.com/?page_id=63"
Candidate 7: "Citizens deserve the right to know what is happening in their name.
It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia. [1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify.
The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”. [2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news.
[1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012, http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/tunisian-journalist-faces-public-morals-charge-after-criticizing-government
[2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/uk-edition"
Candidate 8: "If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries. [1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested.
[1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/PDF_GII/public_attitudes_toward_foreign_affairs.pdf p.11"
Candidate 9: "Where there is a clear objection to discussing a certain subject, insisting on doing so is not news, it’s propaganda.
Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide [1] .
As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels. [2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”. [3]
[1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World.
[2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/not-reporting-homosexuality-in-the-middle-east/
[3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010, http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/iglhrcinthenews/1089.html"
Candidate 10: "It is routine to make determinations on the basis of the race or religion of those affected in a story as to whether it is newsworthy or not. Sixty people of another nationality die in an accident, it may be barely reported, if two people of the news outlet’s home nationality dies in such a tragedy then it is a major story. The interests and prejudices of the consumers of news are reflected all the time in what editors consider to be important."
Candidate 11: "It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.
In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]
[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012"
| This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.
Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.
|
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: So the argument that this is a breach of separation of church and state is pretty weak, IMO.
Response: Oh, oh, and don't forget to include the proposed Federal Kosher Amendment's text, which just coincidentally matches the Levitical proscriptions, in your argument that things like the FMA have nothing to do with separation of church and state. | -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 nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: you have obviously missed the heart of the pro life message.
Response: Oh - so you don't want to force me through pregnancy at any cost to me? You will let me make what decision is best for me? You will actually realize that I am in the best position to know? | -0.857143 |
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: you wouldn't cross a road without looking both ways
Proposition2: Dan Hodges is talking about the conversation about Archy and concern about the skin colour | No Relation |
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? | there is a risk in banning natural medicine because it will not disappear, licensed and regulated naturopathy will be safer for people | 0.843110587 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "we can use chemicals to desulfurize the emissions from plants and vehicles to avoid acid rain", target argumentative component: "contemporarily fossil fuels cause serious environmental conundrums such as acid rain, deduction of ozone layer and global warming" | attack |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "with some basic knowledge of diverse fields, students have more options in choosing specialized areas or jobs in the future", argumentative component 2: "Teenagers are still too young and immature to decide what they are going to dedicate" | No |
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? | Whaling is decimating whales population in the oceans. A ban on whaling will restore a good number of them | 1.0 |
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: Now Damaging Gender Roles?
There is certainly a case to be made that women, in modern-western society have completely shattered the traditional values and roles that are best suited to them.
For example, it has always been the case that men have been the providers, the defenders of themselves, the household and the family. Women have been the maintainers of these things. These things are not unfair. They are not unequal. They are simply what each gender is best suited for.
Women should not feel lesser than men simply because they are "supposed" to do "motherly things". The feminist movement has gone beyond its cause in beginning to deem what role in life is more appropriate.
Candidate 1: "Maternity and Paternity Leave Are Not Yet Equal
Employers worry when they hire young/middle aged women. They fear that after hiring a woman, she will only cost the company money by getting pregnant and going on maternity leave. To combat this attitude, maternity and paternity leave should be equal. Currently, paternity leave is a maximum of two consecutive weeks. These two weeks must be taken within 56 days of the child’s birth. This can be contrasted with the long maternity leave that is allowed for. Women are entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave from day one of employment. Women are entitled to maternity pay for 39 weeks if they have been working for their employer for 26 weeks.
Father’s also do not have the right to take time off work to attend antenatal classes, this allowance is for pregnant employees only. The feminist cause still has this issue to resolve. Until paternity leave is offered an employer can safely assume that a woman will be the partner to burden the care of the child and the employer will be the one to bear these costs of maternity leave. This gives men an unfair advantage in the workplace as they are a “safer bet” for employment."
Candidate 2: "Males Still Dominate the Top Positions
Out of over 250 countries, only a few are currently headed by women. [1] Women still account for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002. [2] Some argue that gender quotas should be established to ensure equal input of men and women in parliament. Therefore, the feminist movement is still needed to fight this battle.
Woman still hold lower position in business, the legal profession and in the world of politics. It is therefore hard to argue that the glass ceiling has disintegrated. Until women hold higher positions in these fields the feminist cause has still not achieved its goals- in seeking to create a world where, amongst other things women can advance up the ladder in their career without being blocked by a glass ceiling and held back in lower positions.
[1] http://www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/statistics.htm
[2] http://www.ipu.org/press-e/gen62.htm"
Candidate 3: "There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to offer a distinctive and useful critique of the causes and consequences of sexual inequality, whether it is men or women who suffer as a result - men and women should be joining forces to offer feminist responses to discrimination, not blaming feminism where men have problems disconnected from the feminist cause.
Additionally, Feminism is a rights movement to place the female sex on equal footing as males. This naturally means that when an inequality exists it needs to be corrected. Yes, even when women have an apparent advantage in something over men it needs to be fixed. It is true men are given lower rights in certain cases. The results of divorce with children involved comes to mind. However, this, like many issues, will be solved in time through feminism. The main issue with this particular example is that women are seen as primary caregivers and are given the responsibility to be in that position. By showing women can succeed in traditionally male dominated areas it also opens the oppurtunity for men to step into female dominated areas. When men and women are seen as equal caregivers then there is less bias to grant custody to a mother over an equal father."
Candidate 4: "Feminism is not about judging women for choices they make. It is about allowing women to make that choice. If we haven’t got to a point where all woman are given the choice either to stay in the home or advance equally in their career or do both then this is a point to indicate that feminism is still needed and relevant. In many ways women are still dictated to about the way they should act or what should interest them. Girls are told in school that science is more of a “boys subject”, while subjects such as wood work are rarely offered in all girls schools. In the media magazines tell girls how to “please your man” further cementing the idea, that women have long fought to remove, that women are solely the object of a man’s desire.
Stereotypes of women still exist and as long as they still exist in the minds of many, feminism still has an active role to play in dispelling these stereotypes. Take rape for an example. There are definitely legislative parts that need to be drastically improved and also better policing, but one way to challenge the cause of rape is to challenge traditional perceptions of the role of men. Why do men rape? Is it something to do with a certain perception of domination, a need to feel powerful? If this is the case can we challenge the traditional pressures and perceptions placed on men that they are the powerful ones. We may have challenged stereotypes about women, but it is still very difficult for men to feel comfortable expressing a 'feminine side.' All of these male stereotypes must also be tackled if we want to establish equality, which is what feminism has always been about."
Candidate 5: "Opponents of the feminist movement have always sought to stereotype feminists in order to reduce their support. That this enterprise is often successful is not an argument against feminism; in any case, many of the women who dislike the label ‘feminist’ turn out to hold what would until recently have been seen as extreme feminist views, such as the belief that women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms. Feminists have always argued that women are just as capable of men; they have campaigned against legal, cultural and social barriers which have worked against women, preventing them from achieving equality."
Candidate 6: "Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve
Feminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for. If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should.
[1] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html#ixzz1TtHZOvXp"
| Feminism is not about judging women for choices they make. It is about allowing women to make that choice. If we haven’t got to a point where all woman are given the choice either to stay in the home or advance equally in their career or do both then this is a point to indicate that feminism is still needed and relevant. In many ways women are still dictated to about the way they should act or what should interest them. Girls are told in school that science is more of a “boys subject”, while subjects such as wood work are rarely offered in all girls schools. In the media magazines tell girls how to “please your man” further cementing the idea, that women have long fought to remove, that women are solely the object of a man’s desire.
Stereotypes of women still exist and as long as they still exist in the minds of many, feminism still has an active role to play in dispelling these stereotypes. Take rape for an example. There are definitely legislative parts that need to be drastically improved and also better policing, but one way to challenge the cause of rape is to challenge traditional perceptions of the role of men. Why do men rape? Is it something to do with a certain perception of domination, a need to feel powerful? If this is the case can we challenge the traditional pressures and perceptions placed on men that they are the powerful ones. We may have challenged stereotypes about women, but it is still very difficult for men to feel comfortable expressing a 'feminine side.' All of these male stereotypes must also be tackled if we want to establish equality, which is what feminism has always been about.
|
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 ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power.
It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians.
Candidate 1: "Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.
As noted above, the political life is steeped in difficult decisions, and some of these are bound to result in choices that are at least potentially illegal. The ability to prosecute politicians incentivizes political opponents to search out past actions by said politicians so as to immobilize them politically. Such prosecutions are therefore not motivated by concern for justice, nor are they conducive to a well-functioning, multipartisan political system wherein representatives seek to work together to achieve their political ends. In the most extreme cases, powerful politicians use prosecutions to immobilize their political opponents."
Candidate 2: "Motivation does not matter. Almost every time someone presses criminal charges, it is for their own personal concerns (such as wanting retribution), rather than concern for the public good; that does not change the fact that if charges are laid, it is because the prosecuting authority has decided that, regardless of why the crime has come to their attention, the interest of society at large requires that the individual be prosecuted. If political motivations are what is needed for politicians to be held accountable, so be it. Even if this is a problem, it can be mitigated with sufficient oversight from an independent prosecuting authority."
Candidate 3: "These mechanisms are not immediate enough to put an immediate stop to an aberrant behavior. Impeachment proceedings take months at least; elections may be years away; and reputational damage is even more long-term. Moreover, these punishments are nowhere near a sufficient deterrent. If loss of one’s job, and damage to one’s public image were sufficient deterrents, we would not prosecute business leaders for insider trading, nor celebrities for drunk driving. The fact is that a criminal justice system which punishes everyone equally is not just fair; it’s also a practical method of achieving meaningful deterrence. Finally, even if we are willing to settle for one of these lesser punishments, the threat of a great punishment gives prosecutors leverage to strike deals with the politicians, such as offering not to prosecute in exchange for coming forward with the details of misdeeds."
Candidate 4: "See argument above regarding other accountability mechanism. Jeopardizing future electoral success, harming one’s political party, and damage to one’s personal legacy are all meaningful checks on the behavior of politicians. To suggest that, in the absence of prosecutions, an under-used tool anyway, politicians will be able to abuse their station with impunity, is simply untrue."
Candidate 5: "Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard
Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve."
Candidate 6: "Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.
It does tremendous damage to the public perception of a given political position to see the holder of that position on trial for criminal acts. Politicians are important role models for the populace at large, and shining light on everyone one of their misdeeds is not conducive to them playing such a role. This hurts the ability of their successors who, though completely innocent, are stepping into an institution now tainted with the image of corruption or scandal. Finally, the very process of prosecution can be damaging to the country, as citizens on opposing sides of the political spectrum disagree over the legitimacy of charges. These effects all deal real damage to the political institutions necessary for the functioning of the state."
Candidate 7: "Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.
By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.
[1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection) http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=454 [Accessed 22 September 2011]"
Candidate 8: "Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties
The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.
[1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-long-tradition-of-criticizing-presidential-vacations/243819/ [Accessed September 9, 2011]
[2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintontrialaccount.html [Accessed September 19, 2011]"
Candidate 9: "The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public. Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public. A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness. Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita."
Candidate 10: "With regard to this issue, elections are unquestionably an effective alternative mechanism. The act of a politician in a liberal democracy holding on to office for another term, by definition, requires public assent. The citizenry has an out: don’t continue electing politicians who aren’t serving the public interest. Regardless, politicians already have a plethora of motives, both legitimate and self-serving, to hold on to public office; this doesn’t move the barometer on incentives to run. Most elections are at least modestly well contested precisely because many qualified candidates really want the position."
Candidate 11: "Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office
Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account. Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option."
Candidate 12: "Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve.
The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state."
Candidate 13: "In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.
The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians. However, this benefit can be achieved through other means. Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system. While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct. If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power. Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part. Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it. While Nixon received a full pardon from his success, [1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid.
[1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974, http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/740061.htm [Accessed September 9, 2011]"
Candidate 14: "This is not necessarily true. A politician could be a brilliant diplomat who happens to commit a minor offence such as drink driving; very few indictable offences correlate directly with one’s ability to discharge the mandate of a political office. Historically, politicians have often had their secret vices, including the rumored drug habits of many 19th century politicians, that have not impeded the performance of their duties."
Candidate 15: "No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant. However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions. That is exactly what immunity would deliver them. A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking. A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree. Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases. For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees [1] [2] . Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society. There is no legitimate need to give them more protection.
[1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/cia-officers-granted-immunity-from-torture-prosecution-update/16268/ [Accessed September 9, 2011]
[2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=265 [Accessed September 9, 2011]"
Candidate 16: "If we don’t want politicians hurting the dignity of the office, there is only one thing we can do: not elect politicians likely to commit crimes! Of course, this is often impossible to tell in advance, but the dilemma remains: a crime has been committed, and that hurts the dignity of the office no matter what action we take. One thing that’s worse than having an office’s holder raked over the coals is for them to get away with a behavior that otherwise warrants punishment. See discussion below under “hurts the image of the office.”"
Candidate 17: "Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.
Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office. It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity. [1] Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties. This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons.
[1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/01/nyregion/court-won-t-bar-return-of-boy-in-abuse-case-to-zimbabwe.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm [Accessed September 9, 2011]"
Candidate 18: "Politicians have to divide their focus anyway. As the examples above concede, being a politician means being pulled in several different directions. Elections are particularly distracting, and in jurisdictions with fixed election cycles like the United States can make periods of up to a year prior to the election a write-off for getting real work done. Thus, personal liability is nothing special among the many concerns a politician has. In fact, accountability, of this direct type, and for serious offences, is probably more important than most of the things a politician is forced to consider, and at the very least deserves inclusion among them."
Candidate 19: "The concept of retribution is a narrow and dubious foundation for justice. A modern, civilized legal system should not be geared around delivering payback on behalf of victims, but rather around advancing the best consequences for the future. For exactly this reason legal systems give several ways in which defendants can avoid punishment, even though they are technically guilty, if punishing them would have bad consequences; these include jury nullification and suspended sentences."
| See argument above regarding other accountability mechanism. Jeopardizing future electoral success, harming one’s political party, and damage to one’s personal legacy are all meaningful checks on the behavior of politicians. To suggest that, in the absence of prosecutions, an under-used tool anyway, politicians will be able to abuse their station with impunity, is simply untrue.
|
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: Women provide a platform for economic development
Where women in Africa are treated more as equals and are being given political power there are benefits for the economy. Africa is already surging economically with 6 out of the world’s ten fastest growing economies in the past decade being a part of sub-Saharan Africa [1] .
While some of the fastest growing economies are simply as a result of natural resource exploitation some are also countries that have given much more influence to women. 56% of Rwanda’s parliamentarians are women. The country’s economy is growing; its poverty rate has dropped from 59% to 45% in 2011 and economic growth is expected to reach up to 10% by 2018. Women become the driving force of the socio-economic development after the 1994 genocide with many taking on leadership roles in their communities. [2]
In Liberia, since Ellen Johnson Sirleaf took the presidency seat on January 2006, notable reforms have been implemented in the country to boot the economy, and with visible results. Liberia’s GDP has grown from 4.6% in 2009 to 7.7% by the end of 2013.
Men in Africa on the other hand have often lead their countries into war, conflict, discord, and the resulting slower economic growth. Men fight leaving women behind to tend the household and care for the family. Giving women a greater voice helps encourage longer term thinking and discourages conflict, one of the main reasons for Africa’s plight in the second half of the 20th century. The feminisation of politics has been identified by Stephen Pinker as one of the causes for a decline in conflict. [3] When peace brings economic growth women will deserve an outsize share of the credit.
[1] Baobab, ‘Growth and other things’, The Economist, May 1st 2013 http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2013/05/development-africa
[2] Izabiliza, Jeanne, ‘The role of women in reconstruction: Experience of Rwanda’, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/Role-Women-Rwanda.pdf
[3] Pinker, S., The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, 2011
Candidate 1: "While it is true that the quota of women in African politics is growing, it is still a far stretch from the control needed to have a credible influence on the economy. It is true; they have high representation in Rwanda, in South Africa, in Liberia and Malawi [1] . But the rest of the continent is lacking in women representation.
Africans appear to not be ready to empower their women; the overall representation of women in the continent is lower than in Europe or North America.
Politics is also not always central to running the economy. There may be women in parliament but do they have an influence on the economy as ministers? In South Africa only 19% of board members are women and they make up less than 20% of top management positions. [2] The future for Africa’s economy hinges not on the representation of women in politics but in investments, good resource managements, developing infrastructure and a cleansing of the system of corruption.
[1] The Economist, ‘Africa’s female politicians: Women are winning’, 9 November 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21589490-quota-systems-are-transforming-african-parliaments-women-are-winning
[2] Thorpe, Jen, ‘Why are there still so few female leaders?’, women24, http://www.women24.com/CareersAndMoney/AtWork/Why-there-are-so-few-women-in-leadership-positions-20140331"
Candidate 2: "Africa's greatest needs are for infrastructure and education
Africa’s greatest needs for development are infrastructure and education. Neither of these needs implies that women are about to become key to the African economy.
Africa is severely deficient in infrastructure; Sub Saharan Africa generates the same amount of electricity as Spain, a country with one seventeenth the population. The World Bank suggests “if all African countries were to catch up with Mauritius in infrastructure, per capita economic growth in the region could increase by 2.2 percentage points. Catching up with Korea’s level would increase economic growth per capita by up to 2.6 percent per year.” [1]
There are numerous projects to alleviate this deficit such as immense projects like the Grand Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo which could power not just the country but its neighbours too. [2] However if construction is the key to the future then this implies men are going to continue to have more impact as the construction industry is traditionally dominated by men.
Africa has been making strides in education for women. Yet there still remains a gap. To take a few examples the youth female literacy rates in Angola 66%, Central African Republic 59%, Ghana 83% and Sierra Leone 52% is still lower than youth male literacy rates or 80%, 72%, 88%, and 70%. [3] And the gap often increases with further education. To take Senegal as an example there are actually more girls than boys enrolled in primary education, a ratio of 1.06 but for secondary this drops to 0.77 and to 0.6 for tertiary. The situation is the same in other countries; Mauritania 1.06, 0.86, 0.42, Mozambique, 0.95, 0.96, 0.63, and Ghana 0.98, 0.92, 0.63. [4]
With women not breaking through to the highest level in education it is unlikely that they will be the main driver of the economy in the future. Their influence may increase as a result of increasing education at lower levels but without equality at the highest level they are unlikely to become key to their countries economic future as the highest skilled jobs and the roles of directing the economy will still be carried out primarily by men.
[1] ‘Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa’, The World Bank, http://go.worldbank.org/SWDECPM5S0
[2] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House would build the Grand Inga Dam’
[3] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘Literacy rate, youth male (% of males ages 15-24)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.1524.LT.MA.ZS/countries
[4] Schwab Klaus et al., The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, World Economic Forum, 2013, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf , pp.328, 276, 288, 208 (in order of mentioning, examples taken pretty much at random – though there are one or two where the ratios actually don’t change much such as Mauritius, but that is against the trend)"
Candidate 3: "Natural resources are key
Africa has a very significant amount of resources that have not yet been exploited and put to good use. The continent has 12% of the world's oil reserves, 40% of its gold, and 80% to 90% of its chromium and platinum. Moreover, it is home to 60% of the world’s underutilized arable land and has vast timber resources. [1]
Given the economic changes, and the recent continent’s economical upraise, Africa has now a real opportunity to capitalize on their resource endowments and high international commodity prices. [2] The major point is that Africa’s resources fuel the world. Commodities from laptops to cell phones, cars or airplanes, all are made from using minerals that come from Africa. For example, catalytic converters are fitted to cars in order to reduce air pollution. Platinum and rhodium are the key components, both resources found in abundance in Africa. Cell phones or laptops use parts made out of tantalum, which is exported from African countries such as Mozambique or Rwanda, and so on. [3]
Africa is also the continent, excluding Antarctica, which is least explored so has most potential growth in raw materials. New explorations reveal much larger reserves than previously known. If these resources and wealth are well managed, in an efficient and equitable way, it could boost Africa’s economy, helping all categories of people, from women to children, offering jobs and generally raising the level of life on the continent.
[1] Lopes, Carlos, and Tony Elumelu, ‘How Africa’s natural resources can drive industrial revolution’, CNN, 20 November 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/20/opinion/africas-natural-resources-industrial-revolution/
[2] Economic Commission for Africa, ‘Making the Most of Africa’s Commodities: Industrializing for Growth, Jobs and Economic Transformation’, uneca.org, 2013, http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/files/publications/unera_report_eng_final_web.pdf
[3] Tutton, Mark, and Milena Veselinovic, ‘How Africa’s resources fuel the world’, CNN, 25 July 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/25/world/africa/africa-resources-fuel-world/index.html"
Candidate 4: "Women do indeed work on small farms, but it is this very size that means they will not be key to the future. A 2.5-4% increase in agricultural production is not much. Even with agriculture as a third of the economy this is only a one off 1% increase in GDP.
This small size is also the reason they do not get loans and the opportunity to develop the land or business; they are not profitable over the long term. Subsistence farming is necessary and investing to create some surplus is beneficial but it will not have sufficient impact.
Instead women need to be taken out of their traditional role where they are the caretakers of the family. They are not the future for Africa’s economy just because they are fulfilling their traditional role, quite the opposite. The fact that women still continue to work in agriculture and they have yet to stand out in the more competitive areas of the economy shows that they are not ready yet to have an impact over the economy, and that this job, securing the future of Africa’s economy as a whole, is still in the hands of men."
Candidate 5: "An increase in literacy does not necessarily translate into greater economic participation by women in the future. Yes more women are being educated but it is not just a lack of education that hinders them. It also requires infrastructure and facilities that are missing in almost every African country, especially in the rural areas. For all of these to happen, first there needs to be political stability [1] . Discrimination against women also needs to go, as proposition has already pointed out in agriculture where women provide the workforce they don’t keep the benefits of their labour; the same could happen in other sectors too.
[1] Shepherd, Ben, ‘Political Stability: Crucial for Growth?’, LSE.ac.uk, http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SU004/shepherd.pdf"
Candidate 6: "Women are not the future for Africa’s economy
In the short to medium term women are unlikely to be the key to Africa’s economic future. Even in western economies, there is still a gap between genders at the workplace. Women are still paid less than men, there are more men CEO’s than women and so forth. This is likely to remain replicated in Africa for decades after there has been full acceptance that women should be treated equally as has happened in the west.
In some parts of Africa there are cultural reasons why women are unlikely to obtain a key role in the near future. In Egypt for example, where 90% of the populations is Muslim, women account for 24% of the labour force, even though they have the right to education. This is true across North Africa where women amount for less than 25% of the work force. [1] Just because there is clearly a large amount of potential being wasted here does not mean that is going to change. Women often have few political or legal rights and so are unlikely to be able to work as equals except in a very few professions such as nursing or teaching.
[1] International Labour Organisation, ‘Labour force, female (% of total labor force)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS"
| While it is true that the quota of women in African politics is growing, it is still a far stretch from the control needed to have a credible influence on the economy. It is true; they have high representation in Rwanda, in South Africa, in Liberia and Malawi [1] . But the rest of the continent is lacking in women representation.
Africans appear to not be ready to empower their women; the overall representation of women in the continent is lower than in Europe or North America.
Politics is also not always central to running the economy. There may be women in parliament but do they have an influence on the economy as ministers? In South Africa only 19% of board members are women and they make up less than 20% of top management positions. [2] The future for Africa’s economy hinges not on the representation of women in politics but in investments, good resource managements, developing infrastructure and a cleansing of the system of corruption.
[1] The Economist, ‘Africa’s female politicians: Women are winning’, 9 November 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21589490-quota-systems-are-transforming-african-parliaments-women-are-winning
[2] Thorpe, Jen, ‘Why are there still so few female leaders?’, women24, http://www.women24.com/CareersAndMoney/AtWork/Why-there-are-so-few-women-in-leadership-positions-20140331
|
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: Deborah Frances-White : His first response was not to say: This cannot stand
Proposition: Sir Keir Starmer's first response was not to say: This cannot stand | Restating |
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: We must retain a respect for academia
Academia is important to society. Technical subjects have the obvious outcomes of new inventions, gadgets, medicines etc. – and although these applications are vocational, they are inspired by academic study. Creative arts are also a huge industry in their own right. Humanities are a source of ideas about society, happiness, social policy and cultural understanding, besides simply being interesting. [1] This is all activity which we should encourage.
Emphasising vocational training would damage the image of academia. Quite apart from the fact that reduced government support for the sector is likely to damage it in real terms, it is very likely that if people are being told by the whole government education system that vocational training is more useful for themselves and for society, they will come to regard non-vocational courses with suspicion. Pressure to conform is a real factor, especially for schoolchildren at ages when they are unlikely to see any reason for a principled, pro-academia stance. This means fewer children will go into it and fewer people will tolerate support for it.
Preserving the prestige of non-vocational courses is important, and it requires government policy to take them seriously.
[1] ‘Section 3: What Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences Offers’, British Academy, accessed 12 June 2013
Candidate 1: "Clearly, more tolerance is a good thing, but putting people through an expensive, three-year course with no career benefit is a sensible way to achieve this. As an example of an alternative, give more support to gap-year programmes and run them in such a way as to get an equivalent mixing. People will learn just as much tolerance in one year as in three, will save time and can even do useful volunteering while they’re on it. This is not mutually exclusive with our policy, which means that you get both benefits."
Candidate 2: "The importance of university to minority groups derives directly from its importance to the rest of the country. It is seen as the key to things like higher-paying jobs for low-income families because it is seen as the key to higher-paying jobs in general. Moreover, this is based on an attitude problem: there are plenty of jobs which do not require degree-level education and which can pay very well at the top end. [1] Under our vocational system, this will all change, and academic study will no longer be the benchmark for success.
Alternatively, even under the current system, what matters to people generally is not the fact of university education alone, it is the careers which it opens up – in particular, stereotypically middle-class careers such as lawyers and bankers. Vocational training would give children just as many opportunities, if not more, as they are not being forced through an academic process of questionable utility first.
[1] Smith, Jacquelyn, ‘America’s Best-Paying Blue-Collar Jobs’, Forbes, 6th April 2012"
Candidate 3: "Vocational training would not actually improve training in the skills which employers are concerned about. When people complain about a skills gap, there are two kinds of skills they are worried about: technical ones, in subjects like engineering, and general ones, such as the ability to present or to write clearly. This is something which is already done in university; the best way to learn how to present and write is to practice presenting and writing. Picking a subject, such as history, simply acts as a useful focus for this work.
As long as employers can be sufficiently clear about what it is they want graduates to be capable of, we will be able to incorporate this into existing courses – so in fact, even supposedly non-vocational courses will teach the right skills.
Technical careers like engineering and computer science might indeed benefit from the change, but it makes no sense to shape the whole education system around a limited set of jobs."
Candidate 4: "This is a mischaracterisation of how academics work. No serious researcher cuts themselves off from the world to work: collaboration, exchange of ideas and chatting by the water cooler are invaluable. Often, a crucial insight into a problem comes from a casual reference by a colleague. Every report into improving research environments stresses the importance of collaboration, both within a discipline and between disciplines.
Anyone who loves their subject will be happy to have more people studying and sharing ideas with them, even if those people are not quite as committed as they are. If those people then leave to do vocational stuff, they will have at least been a positive presence."
Candidate 5: "It is entirely consistent to respect academia while insisting it isn’t appropriate for everyone. By way of analogy, consider that few people do serious sport, but almost no-one looks down on those who do (thinking particularly of casual sport rather than professional sport). We are perfectly capable of seeing the value in things which we don’t do ourselves.
It is even plausible that under the new system academics would become an elite cadre of intellectuals whom schoolchildren would aspire to join and the status of academia would be considerably enhanced. There is a well-known saying, “familiarity breeds contempt.” If fewer people were tempted to think of themselves as amateur scientists, amateur historians etc., we might have more respect for the real ones."
Candidate 6: "None of the above is unique to university. It is possible to find something useful to do practically wherever you are, including university. That doesn’t make it the most important, efficient or effective thing to do – or, indeed, the best place to do it. Anyone on a vocational course will pick up the same general skills and study techniques at least as well.
We agree that there is an advantage to knowing how to study before you start job training, but we don’t think the right answer is to do other, random study first – the skills should ideally be taught at school, or as an introduction to the job training."
Candidate 7: "Everyone gains something from university, whether quantifiable or not. Simply getting out in to the world and meeting more people – not just minorities and other social groups, but even a wider variety of people within your own social group – is an effective way to learn to think more broadly. Many university students live away from home for the first time, forcing them to do things for themselves and learn how things like personal finance work. It also allows them space to explore themselves and shape their own principles. Non-academic activities within university can also broaden horizons and teach new things such as joining student clubs or societies, such as the debating society. Although university may not be the only way of doing this, it has proven effective over the years, so it’s not true to say non-academic people get absolutely nothing from it.
Despite the problems associated with a degree culture, there are other problems with a non-academic culture. Academia creates things: products and inventions in the case of sciences, and thoughts or ideas in the case of humanities (and even though some people argue against government funding for humanities, almost no-one argues they should not be studied at all). Sustaining this creativity requires at least some new people entering the field, bringing their own insights and approaches. For this to happen, it has to be both respectable and accessible. A government policy against academic courses will cripple this and damage all of us."
Candidate 8: "The statement “universities can’t take everyone” is clearly true. But there is a big jump from that to saying “we should stop people from applying,” for two reasons. Firstly, the more obvious conclusion would be to find a way to increase the number of places available, on the grounds that more students means a larger pool of knowledge to draw from and therefore academia will be better. Secondly, for this to have the desired effect we would need the good people to continue to apply, and this is by no means guaranteed – they may simply waltz off into jobs and be lost to academia, in which case we will actually end up worse off.
The limited number of places is a problem, but the proposed solution may make things worse."
| It is entirely consistent to respect academia while insisting it isn’t appropriate for everyone. By way of analogy, consider that few people do serious sport, but almost no-one looks down on those who do (thinking particularly of casual sport rather than professional sport). We are perfectly capable of seeing the value in things which we don’t do ourselves.
It is even plausible that under the new system academics would become an elite cadre of intellectuals whom schoolchildren would aspire to join and the status of academia would be considerably enhanced. There is a well-known saying, “familiarity breeds contempt.” If fewer people were tempted to think of themselves as amateur scientists, amateur historians etc., we might have more respect for the real ones.
|
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: Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents
Parenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says "Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood."**
*Kingston, 2009, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/3/
**Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.htm
Candidate 1: "Having children is our duty and responsibility
We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.
*The Economist Online, 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations"
Candidate 2: "There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women."
Candidate 3: "Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.
*Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php
**Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html"
Candidate 4: "Having children is the essence of existence for every creature
The most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.
* Collins English Dictionary, 2003, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life"
Candidate 5: "There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right."
Candidate 6: "Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids."
Candidate 7: "Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles."
Candidate 8: "Having children guarantees support for parents
From parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.
*Worldcrunch, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html?iid=pf-mai..."
Candidate 9: "The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.
Not only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes."
Candidate 10: "Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents."
| Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.
*Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php
**Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: impossible | It would also make human reproductive cloning virtually impossible because there are no eggs available for research purposes and scientists have n't been able to create any embryos large enough or with sufficient genetic diversity yet . |
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? | this is a free country and citizens should have the right to vote or not to vote. | 0.888297811 |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "My friend Lisa, who is doing part-time job now, tells me that it is fabulous to take it", argumentative component 2: "they can teach students many things about adult life" | Yes |
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: Fiona Bruce: Why not answer the question of who initially paid for it
Proposition: Boris Johnson has not answered the question of who initially paid for renovations of his flat | Challenging |
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: Improve roads or public transports
Many people think that governments should spend money on improving roads and highways while the others say that it would be better to spend money on public transportation. In my opinion, governments should certainly spend money on the public transportation system because it would deal with problems that the rising number of private cars is creating.
First, the using of public transportation reduces the amount of resources using on transportation. Cars depend on gasoline, which is a non-renewable resource. Therefore, the more cars we use means that the faster gasoline in this world is used up. In the contrary, if the public transportation is efficiently used, the amount of gasoline consuming per person will be much lower. And this definitely helps to reserve our invaluable natural resource, gasoline.
Second, public transportation helps to solve the air pollution problems. Averagely, public transports use much less gasoline to carry people than private cars. It means that by using public transports, the less gas exhaust is pumped to the air and people will no longer have to bear the stuffy situation on the roads, which is always full of fumes.
Last but not least, using public transportation is much safer than private transportation. According to National Safety Council, riding the bus is over 170 times safer than private care. Thus there is no reason that governments should hesitate to invest in public transportation, a healthy, safe and economical way of transporting.
In short, I can say for certain that spending money on improving public transportation is necessary because it is the key to protect our world, creating a healthy and safe environment for people to live in.
Argumentative components: governments should certainly spend money on the public transportation system
it would deal with problems that the rising number of private cars is creating
the using of public transportation reduces the amount of resources using on transportation
the more cars we use means that the faster gasoline in this world is used up
Cars depend on gasoline, which is a non-renewable resource
if the public transportation is efficiently used, the amount of gasoline consuming per person will be much lower
this definitely helps to reserve our invaluable natural resource, gasoline
public transportation helps to solve the air pollution problems
public transports use much less gasoline to carry people than private cars
It means that by using public transports, the less gas exhaust is pumped to the air and people will no longer have to bear the stuffy situation on the roads, which is always full of fumes
using public transportation is much safer than private transportation
According to National Safety Council, riding the bus is over 170 times safer than private care
there is no reason that governments should hesitate to invest in public transportation, a healthy, safe and economical way of transporting
spending money on improving public transportation is necessary
it is the key to protect our world, creating a healthy and safe environment for people to live in | Major claims:
governments should certainly spend money on the public transportation system
spending money on improving public transportation is necessary
Claims:
governments should certainly spend money on the public transportation system
it would deal with problems that the rising number of private cars is creating
the using of public transportation reduces the amount of resources using on transportation
public transportation helps to solve the air pollution problems
there is no reason that governments should hesitate to invest in public transportation, a healthy, safe and economical way of transporting
spending money on improving public transportation is necessary
it is the key to protect our world, creating a healthy and safe environment for people to live in
Premises:
the more cars we use means that the faster gasoline in this world is used up
Cars depend on gasoline, which is a non-renewable resource
if the public transportation is efficiently used, the amount of gasoline consuming per person will be much lower
this definitely helps to reserve our invaluable natural resource, gasoline
public transports use much less gasoline to carry people than private cars
It means that by using public transports, the less gas exhaust is pumped to the air and people will no longer have to bear the stuffy situation on the roads, which is always full of fumes
using public transportation is much safer than private transportation
According to National Safety Council, riding the bus is over 170 times safer than private care |
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: It simply won’t work in an internet age
Whatever one thinks about the morality of this idea – and Opposition believes it is an attack on free expression – the simple and compelling fact is that it won’t work. The super-injunctions [i] fiasco demonstrated that keeping information silent in an internet age is simply impossible when there is a keen public interest.
Whether Prop likes it or not, the public is interested in celebrity news, requiring newspapers to ignore what is happening in the blogosphere is asking them not to do their job. It would mean that the only people on the planet who couldn’t tweet celebrity gossip would be those hired to do so.
This is important because it’s effectively impossible to sue a blog or a twitter account so they can publish any old nonsense. The press by contrast are subject to the law and, as a result, rumours remain the stuff of fantasy until they appear in the media. Without that arbiter between truth and fantasy, a curious public might as well believe what some fantasist has posted on their website.
[i] Useful background on super-injunctions as the history leading up to them is here on the BBC site.
Candidate 1: "It matters if celebrities have double standards when they present themselves as being whiter than white. Equally, as Prop points out, there are already laws on defamation, libel, slander, defamation, trespass and surveillance. It is difficult to see what the register would add to these. One of the points that Leveson has routinely ignored is that all of the issues that prompted the inquiry are already illegal; hence the arrest of the journalists and executives involved [i] .
[i] BBCwebsite. Journalist arrested in computer hacking probe. 29 August 2012."
Candidate 2: "There is a clear and demonstrable difference between the public right to know that their savings have been lost but the person who lost them walked off with £40m and seeing a picture that suggests an actress has put on five pounds. The first actually affects the real lives of real people, the second really doesn’t. As for blurred definitions, the NUJ’s own definition of a journalist would seem to work – wherever the person receives the majority of their earnings."
Candidate 3: "Article eight only applies to public bodies so, for the most part, the media are not affected. However, to tackle the more general point – celebrity, by its nature requires some surrender of privacy; presumably those who would sign such a register would still want the ‘good’ publicity but want approval over the ‘bad’ stuff. Once you start giving anyone copy approval over a supposedly free press, you might as shut it down. It has simply ceased to be free at that point."
Candidate 4: "It would seem to be entirely up to the media if they chose to seek an interview with a celebrity about their latest movie – that is, after all, part of most actors’ job descriptions and part of the media’s duty to inform. That hardly seems relevant to whether it’s possible to publish a picture of them shouting at their kids."
Candidate 5: "It would seem to be entirely up to the media if they chose to seek an interview with a celebrity about their latest movie – that is, after all, part of most actors’ job descriptions and part of the media’s duty to inform. That hardly seems relevant to whether it’s possible to publish a picture of them shouting at their kids."
Candidate 6: "If this is going to come down to professional judgement on what is and isn’t news then editors of successful magazines and newspapers would seem to have rather more relevant experience than a High Court judge. One of the ironies of the whole process has been that the one group who took no responsibility for the various crimes of newspapers are the people who bought them; papers follow the whims of their readers, whether the middle class like it or not."
Candidate 7: "The response as simple as the point: Leveson wasn’t asked to create a regulatory framework for the Internet. The web is the papers’ problem, not Leveson’s."
| The response as simple as the point: Leveson wasn’t asked to create a regulatory framework for the Internet. The web is the papers’ problem, not Leveson’s.
|
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. | The one constant in Donald Trump’s foreign-policy views has been his desire to improve relations with Moscow. “There’s nothing I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly, as opposed to the way they are right now,” he said in July, a theme he has since reprised in various ways. It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Trump in the election. But a Putin-Trump bromance and shared business interests can only take this so far. To transform relations, Trump will have to address Russia’s deep concerns about U.S. missile defense in Europe. Missile defenses are weapons whose purpose is to destroy enemy missiles before they reach their target. Some of the systems designed to shoot down short-range weapons, such as Scuds, work well in tests. But despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent on various long-range interceptor concepts over the past 30 years, the U.S. has little to show for the effort. The existing systems are widely considered ineffective. However, future technological development might theoretically make missile interceptors more reliable. For Russia’s leaders, this is a scary prospect. They fear effective defenses could undermine their country’s nuclear deterrent, making it vulnerable to a U.S. first strike. Russia is particularly irked by the U.S.-NATO missile defense project in Europe. Moscow has long called for legal guarantees that the system not be directed against Russia, to no avail. Its frustration has grown in recent years. As Putin said in May, “Nobody listens to us…we do not hear anything but platitudes, and those platitudes mainly boil down to the fact that this is not directed against Russia…Let me remind you that initially there was talk about thwarting a threat from Iran…Where is the Iranian nuclear program now?” He has a point. The original rationale for NATO’s anti-missile system was defense against long-range, nuclear-armed missiles Iran might develop. As President Obama said in 2009, “If the threat from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated.” And indeed, thanks to the 2015 nuclear accord, Iran is currently unable to produce material for a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, previous missile threat estimates have also been proven wrong: Iran’s missiles remain limited to medium-range, and there is no indication of its intention to extend their reach. However, like Wile E. Coyote running past the end of the cliff into thin air, NATO’s missile defense project keeps going even as its grounds disappear: in May, construction of a new missile defense site began in Poland, with the purpose of extending the capacity against the nonexistent threat of intermediate-range missiles. Although Iran could break out from the nuclear deal, it would take at least two years for it to produce one nuclear warhead, and even longer to develop long-range missiles. This would leave ample time for NATO to respond later, as the current phase in Poland is scheduled to take only two years. NATO officials now justify the project in terms of the generic threat of missile proliferation, referring to 30 countries possessing or seeking missiles that could carry WMD. They fail to mention that the only country with intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching Europe is Israel. In short, there is no security rationale behind NATO’s current missile defense policy. Most Europeans do not care, because it has always been the Russian bear rather than the Iran scare that drives their anti-missile enthusiasm. Countries like Poland want to host missile defense components because a U.S. military presence eases their anxieties about Russia. Unfortunately, missile defenses provide a false sense of security, as they invite more tensions with Russia – which recently placed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad to target the Polish site. Europeans also tend to dismiss Russian concerns. Americans, who placed Soviet missile defenses on their Cold War nuclear target lists, should know better. However, particularly after the George W. Bush administration withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, the White House has downplayed this problem, viewing missile defenses as inherently benign. Trump has a unique opportunity to start correcting past mistakes by halting the construction of the unnecessary Polish missile interceptor site. Showing long-overdue restraint on this key strategic issue would improve European security and save hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, both of which might appeal to a president-elect who believes U.S. allies are freeloaders. And there are less costly ways to reassure the Poles, such as stationing U.S. troops in Poland as a tripwire. This could also pave the way for dramatic nuclear reductions. As Steven Pifer from the Brookings Institution recently noted, “A future U.S. administration interested in a treaty providing for further cuts in strategic nuclear forces may find that it can go no further if it is not prepared to negotiate a treaty on missile defense.” Trump might want to check in with Henry Kissinger on the interrelationship between strategic arms limitation and the ABM Treaty in the 1970s. There are too many unknowns to predict what Trump will do in office. However, if the president-elect is serious about changing U.S. relations with Russia – and if he comes to understand the value of the Iran nuclear accord – he might be able to conclude a deal that eluded Obama and improve NATO security. | The one constant in Donald Trump’s foreign-policy views has been his desire to improve relations with Moscow. It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Trump in the election To transform relations, Trump will have to address Russia’s deep concerns about U.S. missile defense in Europe despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent on various long-range interceptor concepts over the past 30 years, the U.S. has little to show for the effort existing systems are widely considered ineffective future technological development might theoretically make missile interceptors more reliable. For Russia’s leaders, this is a scary prospect effective defenses could undermine their country’s nuclear deterrent Russia is particularly irked by the U.S.-NATO missile defense project Europe. Moscow has long called for legal guarantees that the system not be directed against Russia . Its frustration has grown in recent years The original rationale for NATO’s anti-missile system was defense against long-range, nuclear-armed missiles Iran might develop thanks to the 2015 nuclear accord, Iran is currently unable to produce material for a nuclear bomb previous missile threat estimates have also been proven wrong: Iran’s missiles remain limited to medium-range, and there is no indication of its intention to extend their reach : in May, construction of a new missile defense site began in Poland with the purpose of extending the capacity against the nonexistent threat of intermediate-range missiles Although Iran could break out from the nuclear deal, it would take at least two years for it to produce one nuclear warhead, and even longer to develop long-range missiles. This would leave ample time for NATO to respond later, as the current phase in Poland is scheduled to take only two years. NATO officials now justify the project in terms of the generic threat of missile proliferation They fail to mention that the only country with intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching Europe is Israel there is no security rationale behind NATO’s current missile defense policy. Countries like Poland want to host missile defense components because a U.S. military presence eases their anxieties about Russia missile defenses provide a false sense of security, as they invite more tensions with Russia which recently placed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad to target the Polish site Trump has a unique opportunity to start correcting past mistakes by halting the construction of the unnecessary Polish missile interceptor site Showing long-overdue restraint on this key strategic issue would improve European security and save hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars This could also pave the way for dramatic nuclear reductions “A future U.S. administration interested in a treaty providing for further cuts in strategic nuclear forces may find that it can go no further if it is not prepared to negotiate a treaty on missile defense if the president-elect is serious about changing U.S. relations with Russia he might be able to conclude a deal that eluded Obama and improve NATO security. |
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: Assuming this right exists....you could say that you have no right to kill it though, you can only try to starve it.\n-You have consented sex and get pregnant. The pregnancy is a direct consequence that was known when having sex.\n-You have consented to a stranger coming into your house to eat dinner. The stranger coming in and sitting down and using your plates and eating your food is a direct consequences of you inventing him in for dinner. \n-If you say you don\'t want the unborn to "live off you" anymore then the only thing you can do is starve it because you can\'t kill it as it did nothing that it was not allowed to do until just now.\n-You have decided the stranger must go, however, you don\'t have a right to kill him right there as you didn\'t give him any reasonable time to leave.
Response: You could put the stranger out even if they had nowhere to go and it was freezing cold out. | 1.4 |
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: Traditional games or modern games in developing children's skills
Games have played a key role in children's growth, especially in terms of their abilities. With technological advances, children have more access to modern games currently. In such case, the relative importance of traditional games and modern games in children's developments of skills has become a frequent topic of discussion. For me, I believe parents and educators should attach more importance to traditional games.
It is true that modern games may be, to some extent, beneficial for children to foster some skills, such as computer skills or the capacity to keep up with the latest trend. This is because children have to be proficient at computers and the Internet if they want to join online games, which, in fact, helps children acquire a particularly powerful skill at work in future. At the same time, children have the chance to experience the state-of-the-art technology, raising their awareness of innovation rather than stay conservative.
However, I think traditional games are still indispensible in children's learning process, even much more essential than modern games, especially in modern society. One primary merit of traditional games is that they foster children's communication skills. Unlike most modern games which focus on the interactions between children and machines, traditional games provide a relaxing and enjoyable atmosphere where children can chat, laugh and cooperate face to face. As a result, communicating with a variety of people will not be an issue for these children any more.
Furthermore, it is the educational functions traditional games hold that keep them alive today. In fact, these traditional games were elaborately devised by educators and have been proven effective in improving children's skills on different aspects in previous teaching practices. By contrast, modern games are developed by game companies for the purpose of profits. Therefore, there is a risk that children may be exposed to unhealthy contents, such as violence or pornography, arranged in the games by such companies to secure financial survival.
Thus, I would conclude that traditional games should be, by no means, ignored by parents and teachers with the advent of modern games. Only through traditional games can children be ensured a positive and healthy skills learning process.
Argumentative components: parents and educators should attach more importance to traditional games
traditional games should be, by no means, ignored by parents and teachers with the advent of modern games
Only through traditional games can children be ensured a positive and healthy skills learning process
modern games may be, to some extent, beneficial for children to foster some skills, such as computer skills or the capacity to keep up with the latest trend
children have to be proficient at computers and the Internet if they want to join online games, which, in fact, helps children acquire a particularly powerful skill at work in future
children have the chance to experience the state-of-the-art technology, raising their awareness of innovation rather than stay conservative
traditional games are still indispensible in children's learning process, even much more essential than modern games, especially in modern society
One primary merit of traditional games is that they foster children's communication skills
Unlike most modern games which focus on the interactions between children and machines, traditional games provide a relaxing and enjoyable atmosphere where children can chat, laugh and cooperate face to face
communicating with a variety of people will not be an issue for these children any more
it is the educational functions traditional games hold that keep them alive today
these traditional games were elaborately devised by educators and have been proven effective in improving children's skills on different aspects in previous teaching practices
modern games are developed by game companies for the purpose of profits
there is a risk that children may be exposed to unhealthy contents, such as violence or pornography, arranged in the games by such companies to secure financial survival | Major claims:
parents and educators should attach more importance to traditional games
traditional games should be, by no means, ignored by parents and teachers with the advent of modern games
Claims:
parents and educators should attach more importance to traditional games
traditional games should be, by no means, ignored by parents and teachers with the advent of modern games
Only through traditional games can children be ensured a positive and healthy skills learning process
modern games may be, to some extent, beneficial for children to foster some skills, such as computer skills or the capacity to keep up with the latest trend
traditional games are still indispensible in children's learning process, even much more essential than modern games, especially in modern society
it is the educational functions traditional games hold that keep them alive today
Premises:
children have to be proficient at computers and the Internet if they want to join online games, which, in fact, helps children acquire a particularly powerful skill at work in future
children have the chance to experience the state-of-the-art technology, raising their awareness of innovation rather than stay conservative
One primary merit of traditional games is that they foster children's communication skills
Unlike most modern games which focus on the interactions between children and machines, traditional games provide a relaxing and enjoyable atmosphere where children can chat, laugh and cooperate face to face
communicating with a variety of people will not be an issue for these children any more
these traditional games were elaborately devised by educators and have been proven effective in improving children's skills on different aspects in previous teaching practices
modern games are developed by game companies for the purpose of profits
there is a risk that children may be exposed to unhealthy contents, such as violence or pornography, arranged in the games by such companies to secure financial survival |
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? | judicial activism allows court authorities to mandate changes in behavior without passing legislation through a governing body. judicial authorities are knowledgeable and can decisions that benefit us all. | 0.755223304 |
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? | celibacy is up to each individual person. | 0.703936426 |
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: Gay marriage
Quote: What amazes me is someone could actually believe a constitutional ban on gay marriage is in anyway a contributing factor to divorce rates.
Response: I know it's almost as silly as thinking gay marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage. | 2.2 |
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: Evoluition: Change in allele frequency in a population over time.\nSo....where is your tautology, mutually exclusive theory, and redundant terms? I'm not seeing it there.\nStill no reply? Did you miss it? That's OK if you did, I understand you're busy cutting and pasting the entire literary works of the last century (Without having read them all oddly enough).\n-Mach
Response: No I didn't miss it, I was hoping you'd actually put forward an argument against what I said, not what you think I said. See what I actually said was the tautology. Then make your argument.\nNote Post 30\n | -2.8 |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | deregulation has caused nothing but problems. i can't think of any benefit that de regulation has caused.it is very difficult for me to comprehend why those especially in poorer circumstances would even support such a toxic ideology when it has only proven time and time again to only benefit the wealthy and destroyed every other social class in the process. I could list the problems but it could go on forever. im interested in hearing the opinions on those who have viewed deregulation and privatization as a good thing and hear why they think that | I believe there can be no benefit from the privatization and deregulation of an Industry/Institution and those who truly believe this are sociopathic and selfish people. |
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: Power is shifting to the East
Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe.
[1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015, http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1871455/chinas-president-xi-jinping-tells-britains-pm-david
Candidate 1: "The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained."
Candidate 2: "The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy
Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.
[1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/"
Candidate 3: "Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly
Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views."
Candidate 4: "UK will be disentangled from EU affairs
Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neither of which concern the UK when not a member of the EU. Migration would be stopped at the channel while Ukraine is at the opposite end of the EU. The EU would essentially become a buffer for the UK."
Candidate 5: "It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK."
Candidate 6: "There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]
[1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/boris-and-the-brexiteers-are-talking-nonsense-about-britains-trade-policies/"
Candidate 7: "The UK will still be part of Europe just not in the EU. It will still be a member of a plethora of other organisations; NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, European free trade area. Countries like France and Germany are not going to stop listening to the UK because it is no longer a member."
Candidate 8: "EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain
As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. [1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements [2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln [3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions.
[1] See #noTTIP, http://www.nottip.org.uk/aboutttip/
[2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015, https://aric.adb.org/fta-country
[3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation, http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=KR%2cGB"
| There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]
[1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/boris-and-the-brexiteers-are-talking-nonsense-about-britains-trade-policies/
|
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: we need to make sure as politicians that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the public can feel safe, that they can trusted the police force
Proposition2: the Select Committee have an important role to play in the changing of attitudes of police | 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: Each country should tackle its own problems
Every country is going to be affected by climate change in one way or another developed countries included. Australia has often been singled out as being a country that is “anti-climate” [1] but Australia is already being hit by bigger bushfires and sudden floods and the cost on Australian infrastructure is estimated to rise to $9billion per year by 2020 and continue rising, [2] and this is only one small slice of the costs such as crop failures due to drought, health problems – there have already been increases in dengue fever and malaria in Australia. [3] Developed countries which are also going to be severely affected by climate change have a responsibility to their own people first and should not be paying for other countries to adapt.
[1] Readfearn, Graham, ‘Australia slides down to bottom on climate change performance index’, theguardian.com, 18 November 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/australia-climate-change-un-warsaw
[2] The Climate Institute, ‘Coming Ready or Not: Can Australia's infrastructure handle climate change?’, 29 October 2012, http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/coming-ready-or-not-can-australias-infrastructure-handle-climate-change.html
[3] Buckley, Ralf et al., ‘Climate response Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia.’, Griffith University, 2007, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/300643/Climate_Response_Issues.pdf , p.24
Candidate 1: "Aid programs are already dealing with most of ‘the low hanging fruit’ in terms of preventing deaths and will continue to do so. However providing aid to other areas does not absolve the west of the need to provide funds for adaptation when they have created the change in the first place."
Candidate 2: "Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane. [1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change.
[1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/15/the-terrible-toll-of-typhoon-haiyan-does"
Candidate 3: "The developed world has the responsibility to help others
The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise. [1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much. [2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions.
[1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general
[2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical"
Candidate 4: "Climate change is already costing lives
Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year. [1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people. [2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear.
[1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf , p.17
[2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013, http://phys.org/news/2013-03-human-climate-big-factor-somali.html"
Candidate 5: "In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.
[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0
[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html"
Candidate 6: "Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change
A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion. [1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion. [2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility.
[1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013 http://www.unep.org/roa/Amcen/docs/publications/Africa_Adapatation_Gap.pdf , p.xi
[2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sub-saharan-africa/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html , ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf"
Candidate 7: "The developed world has the necessary skills
Many of the areas of adaptation are areas where the west has the relevant expertise; seasonal forecasting, adjusting farming – perhaps by engineering hardier plants, weather insurance etc. Africa does not have experience or experts in many of the relevant areas, for example Africa lags behind in bioscience, [1] so it makes sense for the west to provide these experts. And while they do so the west might as well also pay the cost of these expertise and also provide the necessary skills education and training to overcome these problems.
[1] Wafula, Kevin, ‘Africa still lags behind on bioscience capacities, says Scientist’, Africa Science News, 2011, http://www.africasciencenews.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=764:africa-still-lags-behind-on-bioscience-capacities-says-scientist-&catid=49:food&Itemid=113"
Candidate 8: "Africa will be among the hardest hit
The IPCC starts its chapter on Africa “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability”. [1] It is also the poorest continent in the world so least able to cope. In the GAIN index by the Global Adaptation Institute which measures vulnerability and readiness for climate change eight of the bottom ten are African states. [2] The changes to Africa could be dramatic; 40% of wildlife habitats could disappear, crop yields fall by 5% despite already being the lowest in the world and 70 million are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise. [3] If anywhere needs help from developed countries in adaptation it is Africa.
[1] Boko, Michel, et al., ‘Africa’, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, IPCC, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9.pdf , p.435
[2] Gain Index, 2011, http://index.gain.org/ranking
[3] Bloomfield, Steve, ‘Africa ‘will be worst hit by climate change’’, The Independent, 6 November 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/africa-will-be-worst-hit-by-climate-change-423143.html"
Candidate 9: "While countries like Australia are going to be hit by Climate Change they at least have the resources to carry out adaptation on their own. Poor countries don’t have the money so there will not be any adaptation. The result will be more natural disasters and deaths through disease both things that are seen as worthy of providing aid. I would be much better to help prevent these disasters being too severe than waiting until they occur to provide aid."
| While countries like Australia are going to be hit by Climate Change they at least have the resources to carry out adaptation on their own. Poor countries don’t have the money so there will not be any adaptation. The result will be more natural disasters and deaths through disease both things that are seen as worthy of providing aid. I would be much better to help prevent these disasters being too severe than waiting until they occur to provide aid.
|
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: I think this is unlikely under the current makeup of the Supreme Court. But that of course is the fear that many have, i.e., that gay marriage would be imposed via judicial fiat (whether at the state or federal level) rather than through legislative means.
Response: Well, let\'s be honest here. People fear gay marriage, not that it might come about via judicial fiat. That\'s just the current whipping horse because that\'s how it happened first, for some broad values of judicial fiat of course. There was a recent post here about rights granted gays by their state legislature, Oregon I think, and a group jumped in and forced the law on hold via a petition drive. So it really isn\'t the means by which gays get equality that upsets some folks, it\'s the equality itself. "judicial fiat" is just a phrase people can use so they can avoid stating their true motives, preventing gays from being treated as equals.\n | 1.83333 |
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? | television is a big part of our modern culture so we would lose another conversation starter. | 0.467249026 |
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: Gay marriage
Quote: If you can find something untrue in the article, point it out and proffer your evidence; otherwise... I didn\'t think posters were required to "balance" their opinions here.
Response: That's the thing.\nJPSartre12 can't point to anything inaccurate, so you see this mundane complaint that *you're posting something I don't like* ...\nQuite frankly, if Christianity insists on trying to tell the government how it should perform marriages, I think that street should cut both ways and the government should be able to have input on how religion performs marriages...\nJPSartre12's reply is reflective of the *anti-gay Christians are seeking discrimination against gays, but we're going to try to pretend we're the real victims while we bash them* school of thought. | 16.666700000000002 |
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: and decided to scrape you out. Think about all the things you enjoy now, they would never happenif your mother decided to just throw you away. Abortion is inhumane, and iresponsible. If you made a child through sex, then is on you to keep it.
Response: And here\'s an example why our culture has not embraced logic yet. What if your parents had a headache when they were going to have sex and decided not to and you weren\'t concieved? Think about all the things you enjoy now, they would\'ve never happened if your parents had a headache and decided not to have sex.\nIf they did decide to abort me, it would\'ve been before I existed. You can only legally abort in the first and second trimester, and that was before I existed. "I" came to exist somewhere in the third trimester, when I gained mental existance and awareness. Before that, the embryo was just a cellular watersack. Your logic is extremely flawed, more so that most of the pro-lifers on these forums. I would think a bit deeper about your position before coming and posting it onto here. | 16.666700000000002 |
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 government's interest in protecting traditional families.
Numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.
1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)
Candidate 1: "Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.
There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?"
Candidate 2: "Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18.
Proposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered.
1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)
2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)"
Candidate 3: "These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world."
Candidate 4: "Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.
Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights).
1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)
2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)"
Candidate 5: "These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities."
Candidate 6: "Gay people have the right to a family life.
Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws.
1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)
2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011)."
Candidate 7: "There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.
The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society.
1 Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011).
2 Wikipeida. "LGBT adoption status around the world" .(accessed 2 August 2011).
3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011)."
| These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world.
|
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: New high school
Although some of my neighbors will oppose this idea, personally I approve it. The new high school will bring a lot of advantages to my community. The high school of my district is pretty old and lacks in necessities for students, so they can't get enough education. I really believe that new high school is a great addition to the educational system of my community.
Firstly, I think that the new high school will bring a lots of opportunities for student concerned in education. Their old high school is pretty old and need in new educational materials, repairing of the place for sport activities. Also the laboratory of physics and chemistry was in bad condition, so the students can't study well during the classes. They will study with new breath and great enthusiasm in new school.
Secondly, the new high school will be a place for new connections between the student of different communities and districts of the city. After classes students and not only the students will get together in building of high school, participate in different competitions. For instance during the football match the students of different high schools will come and after the competition they will keep in touch. This will increase the social connections of the students. The only disadvantage is the noisiness of the competitions. The people living in the neighborhood will be a bit perturbed, but I think this isn't a important reason for ceasing the competitions.
To sum up, this new construction has a lot of advantages like new connections between students from different communities, also the new educational equipment will increase the students' enthusiasm toward studying. The only disadvantage is the nosiness of competitions which students will participate, but I think that it isn't a big deal. So the new high school will be a great addition for my environment.
Argumentative components: new high school is a great addition to the educational system of my community
The new high school will bring a lot of advantages to my community
The high school of my district is pretty old and lacks in necessities for students, so they can't get enough education
The only disadvantage is the nosiness of competitions which students will participate
the new high school will be a great addition for my environment
it isn't a big deal
this new construction has a lot of advantages like new connections between students from different communities, also the new educational equipment will increase the students' enthusiasm toward studying
the new high school will bring a lots of opportunities for student concerned in education
Their old high school is pretty old and need in new educational materials, repairing of the place for sport activities
the laboratory of physics and chemistry was in bad condition
the students can't study well during the classes
They will study with new breath and great enthusiasm in new school
the new high school will be a place for new connections between the student of different communities and districts of the city
After classes students and not only the students will get together in building of high school, participate in different competitions
during the football match the students of different high schools will come and after the competition they will keep in touch
This will increase the social connections of the students
The only disadvantage is the noisiness of the competitions
The people living in the neighborhood will be a bit perturbed
this isn't a important reason for ceasing the competitions | Major claims:
new high school is a great addition to the educational system of my community
The new high school will bring a lot of advantages to my community
the new high school will be a great addition for my environment
Claims:
new high school is a great addition to the educational system of my community
The new high school will bring a lot of advantages to my community
The high school of my district is pretty old and lacks in necessities for students, so they can't get enough education
The only disadvantage is the nosiness of competitions which students will participate
the new high school will be a great addition for my environment
this new construction has a lot of advantages like new connections between students from different communities, also the new educational equipment will increase the students' enthusiasm toward studying
the new high school will bring a lots of opportunities for student concerned in education
the new high school will be a place for new connections between the student of different communities and districts of the city
Premises:
it isn't a big deal
Their old high school is pretty old and need in new educational materials, repairing of the place for sport activities
the laboratory of physics and chemistry was in bad condition
the students can't study well during the classes
They will study with new breath and great enthusiasm in new school
After classes students and not only the students will get together in building of high school, participate in different competitions
during the football match the students of different high schools will come and after the competition they will keep in touch
This will increase the social connections of the students
The only disadvantage is the noisiness of the competitions
The people living in the neighborhood will be a bit perturbed
this isn't a important reason for ceasing the competitions |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: marijuana legalization
Stance: PRO
Aspect: prevent | If we were able to use our resources more efficiently then I believe we 'd see fewer deaths caused by alcohol abuse , less drunk driving accidents , and perhaps even some preventative measures like better education programs so kids know how bad their choices really are before making them . |
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: Gay marriage
Quote: Hooray it is about time. \nGot to slap dem Christians down.
Response: It's sophomoric remarks like that that hurt the gay cause in America. \nGod isn't mocked, though. And I doubt the people are either. \nAnd I'm glad California outlawed the sin. The only thing you have left is to hope the far left, spiritually-stunted judges in the US Supreme Court are pro Sodom and Gomorrah. | 50.0 |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: nuclear energy
Stance: PRO
Aspect: production | `` We are pleased to announce this significant milestone toward advancing America 's clean energy future - an investment that creates thousands of well-paying jobs here in Illinois while helping us achieve two important goals : Producing more electricity safely and responsibly ; and Reducing carbon emissions ... '' said Energy Secretary Steven Chu . |
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: \xe2\x80\x9cWe thought that the idea itself was important, that this is a really powerful approach to a very major question,\xe2\x80\x9d said Funk, \xe2\x80\x9cbut we thought there was no way in the world that we were actually going to get statistically significant results.\xe2\x80\x9d The reason for his doubt was the incompleteness and lack of uniformity of ecological data. \xe2\x80\x9cThere are all these species out there and so few of them are known in intimate detail, so any kind of ecological characterization \xe2\x80\x93 through no fault of ecologists \xe2\x80\x93 will be limited in accuracy and precision,\xe2\x80\x9d Funk said.
Response: I think the FSM threw these guys a bone. They cherrypicked which taxa would give them the most statistically significant results. If they were to expand the method to include more and more taxa, they'd see the Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ramen. | -0.833333 |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: minimum wage
Stance: CON
Aspect: hours | If you do n't make enough in tips to cover the hourly rate , your employer is required by law to pay the difference . |
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: Does Bob have the right to detach himself from Tom ?
Response: I think the real question is not detaching but killing. You don't detach a fetus during an abortion..you just kill the fetus (or embryo) and suck it out. I am not sure Tom is for any of that.\nBut if Tom would die, then no...Bob has no right to detach...in fact, probably no right even if he wouldn't die.\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: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement
Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment [1] .
When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.” [2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.
[1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription
[2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011, http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161 , accessed 07/29/2011
Candidate 1: "Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs
We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market. [1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research.
Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average.
By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually. [2]
So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue.
[1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004, http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf , accessed 08/08/2011
[2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf , accessed 08/01/2011"
Candidate 2: "The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.
Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful."
Candidate 3: "Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence. [1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem.
Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine. [2]
This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.
[1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/
[2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf , accessed 08/01/2011"
Candidate 4: "Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses
Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation.
Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers."
Candidate 5: "Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research.
The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies [1] . Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% [2] .
“U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising. [3]
Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug [4] .
So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more.
[1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf , accessed 07/30/2011
[2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf , accessed 07/30/2011
[3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html , accessed 07/29/2011
[4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/"
Candidate 6: "The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system
Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.
As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.
Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .
Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]
Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.
[1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
[2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm , accessed 07/30/2011"
Candidate 7: "This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them.
The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them.
Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1]
[1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011"
Candidate 8: "Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients
If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand.
In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship. [1]
Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.
[1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011"
Candidate 9: "Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be.
Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood.
It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role. [1]
[1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011"
Candidate 10: "According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States.
Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state. [1]
So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.
[1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF
PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf , accessed 08/07/2011"
Candidate 11: "Patients will be better informed than under the status quo
Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.
Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.
Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]
56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.
Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.
In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.
[1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm , accessed 08/07/2011
[2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537 , accessed 08/08/2011"
| Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be.
Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood.
It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role. [1]
[1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt , accessed 08/07/2011
|
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "I don’t want to see the same kind of ending again and again", argumentative component 2: "we can’t always let good people be rewarded in movies or TV programs" | Yes |
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: Fiona Bruce : you're talking about the conversation about Archy and concern about what colour skin
Proposition: Dan Hodges is talking about the conversation about Archy and concern about the skin colour | Assertive Questioning |
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: Should teachers be paid according to how much their students learn?
Everyone is different. Although students are in the same process of education system, learning abilities in each students are not equal. Some students are fast learner, but some students are not. Thus, paying for teacher base on grade that students got is not appropriate, and it is not fair for teacher. So that, I disagree with this notion.
To begin with, in schools, main task of teacher to give knowledge to students, and this role have to finish in time. there are certain period of time for teachers to teach. In these short time, it is not possible for teachers to pay attention to individual students in class. Teachers have to manage to teach every topics by schedule. If teachers pay attention to specific students, their work might not finish on time, and this might make many student miss some field in topics that they should know.
Second, learning abilities in each students is different. It is not possible that they all comprehend all lessons in the same period of time. Some students might understand all topics that they had learnt but some are not. Therefore, testing result are different. This problems depend on how hard study they do. It is not teachers fault. Thus, teachers should not be paid by testing result that students get.
Lastly, there could lead to a big problem if schools pay teachers by grade that students get. That is problem in quality of education. Teacher may not care about how they have to teach to make students understand the topics. Teachers may just give high grades to get higher salary. This problem should not be happened. Therefore, grade that students get should not be in evaluating teacher.
In conclusion, I totally disagree with this statement that teachers should be paid by how much their students learn because teacher could not pay attention to each students in class. Besides, learning abilities of student are different. Moreover, there are problems if paying teacher by grade students get.
Argumentative components: paying for teacher base on grade that students got is not appropriate, and it is not fair for teacher
I totally disagree with this statement that teachers should be paid by how much their students learn
teacher could not pay attention to each students in class
learning abilities of student are different
there are problems if paying teacher by grade students get
there are certain period of time for teachers to teach
In these short time, it is not possible for teachers to pay attention to individual students in class
Teachers have to manage to teach every topics by schedule
If teachers pay attention to specific students, their work might not finish on time, and this might make many student miss some field in topics that they should know
main task of teacher to give knowledge to students, and this role have to finish in time
teachers should not be paid by testing result that students get
learning abilities in each students is different
It is not possible that they all comprehend all lessons in the same period of time
Some students might understand all topics that they had learnt but some are not
testing result are different
This problems depend on how hard study they do
It is not teachers fault
grade that students get should not be in evaluating teacher
there could lead to a big problem if schools pay teachers by grade that students get
That is problem in quality of education
Teacher may not care about how they have to teach to make students understand the topics
Teachers may just give high grades to get higher salary
This problem should not be happened | Major claims:
paying for teacher base on grade that students got is not appropriate, and it is not fair for teacher
I totally disagree with this statement that teachers should be paid by how much their students learn
Claims:
paying for teacher base on grade that students got is not appropriate, and it is not fair for teacher
I totally disagree with this statement that teachers should be paid by how much their students learn
teacher could not pay attention to each students in class
learning abilities of student are different
there are problems if paying teacher by grade students get
Teachers have to manage to teach every topics by schedule
teachers should not be paid by testing result that students get
grade that students get should not be in evaluating teacher
Premises:
there are certain period of time for teachers to teach
In these short time, it is not possible for teachers to pay attention to individual students in class
If teachers pay attention to specific students, their work might not finish on time, and this might make many student miss some field in topics that they should know
main task of teacher to give knowledge to students, and this role have to finish in time
learning abilities in each students is different
It is not possible that they all comprehend all lessons in the same period of time
Some students might understand all topics that they had learnt but some are not
testing result are different
This problems depend on how hard study they do
It is not teachers fault
there could lead to a big problem if schools pay teachers by grade that students get
That is problem in quality of education
Teacher may not care about how they have to teach to make students understand the topics
Teachers may just give high grades to get higher salary
This problem should not be happened |
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: Prove it! Prove that there would be no rooted trees at all within the sedimentary layers at all. And prove that there would be no tracks or burrows or evidence of plant life as we find. In fact we would expect to find all of those things as evidence that this event was fast and cataclysmic in order to find all of these things together in the same areas.
Response: Archie, instead of deciding before hand that I'm wrong, read what I'm saying. What trees were growing during this flood? I'm guessing there were no acorns sprouting into oaks during the flood. Therefore, in this flood sediment, we would find no rooted trees. We would find no burrows, and we would find no tracks.\nNow we've seen you can't answer my question. Whether this is because you didn't understand it, or didn't want to consider it, I don't know. But there is no global flood sediment which meets the criteria neccessary to demonstrate a global flood. | 16.666700000000002 |
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? | it is unjust to harm the innocent citizens when they are not the perpetrators | 0.899137084 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: we should ban whaling because many whale species are endangered.; Topic: We should ban whaling | pro |
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: If you think about it, every phsyical cause or mechanism of evoution is either conservative or degnerating [sic]. First you have natural selection \xe2\x80\x93 which is essentially a weeding out process.
Response: It is both conservative and helpful, depending on the situation. An explanation is available upon request.\n | 1.5 |
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: International aid
The world has become more prosperous than ever yet a great number of people are still living in poverty or suffering by wars or disasters. Charity organisations have been playing an important role to provide support to those people. However, it is controversial whether the help should go to the people who need it most or the citizens of the country where the charity organisations are located. My view is that international aid should be prioritised.
International aid is critical because people from other countries may be facing much more serious problems. Many people, for example in some African countries, are living below the basic standards. They lack food, water or clothes which keep them warm, not to mention the education needs. What is worse, people who live in countries that are confronted with wars or natural disasters are facing even more severe issues such as security, homelessness or the pain of losing best friends or family members. It is clear that those people are in desperate need of international support.
Despite the importance of helping those beyond our national borders, it is reasonable to lend a hand to our fellow citizens. After all, charity organisations are mainly funded by the home country thus there is a high demand that the money should be spent in the place where it is collected. Another reason is that, even within the most developed countries, there are still poor people who lack their basic needs. By solving the problems in the home country, it is beneficial for social stability and steady economic growth.
In conclusion, people from unfortunate countries need more international assistance while helping citizens in the home country is also necessary.
Argumentative components: international aid should be prioritised
people from unfortunate countries need more international assistance while helping citizens in the home country is also necessary
International aid is critical
Many people, for example in some African countries, are living below the basic standards
They lack food, water or clothes which keep them warm, not to mention the education needs
What is worse, people who live in countries that are confronted with wars or natural disasters are facing even more severe issues such as security, homelessness or the pain of losing best friends or family members
those people are in desperate need of international support
there is a high demand that the money should be spent in the place where it is collected
charity organisations are mainly funded by the home country
even within the most developed countries, there are still poor people who lack their basic needs
By solving the problems in the home country, it is beneficial for social stability and steady economic growth
it is reasonable to lend a hand to our fellow citizens
people from other countries may be facing much more serious problems | Major claims:
international aid should be prioritised
people from unfortunate countries need more international assistance while helping citizens in the home country is also necessary
Claims:
international aid should be prioritised
people from unfortunate countries need more international assistance while helping citizens in the home country is also necessary
International aid is critical
it is reasonable to lend a hand to our fellow citizens
Premises:
Many people, for example in some African countries, are living below the basic standards
They lack food, water or clothes which keep them warm, not to mention the education needs
What is worse, people who live in countries that are confronted with wars or natural disasters are facing even more severe issues such as security, homelessness or the pain of losing best friends or family members
those people are in desperate need of international support
there is a high demand that the money should be spent in the place where it is collected
charity organisations are mainly funded by the home country
even within the most developed countries, there are still poor people who lack their basic needs
By solving the problems in the home country, it is beneficial for social stability and steady economic growth
people from other countries may be facing much more serious problems |
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: Paul Mason : they're up against extremely powerful people with a private education, with inherited money, for whom life will always get better
Proposition: the rise of any new variants would be a very important factor in working out how we went through the roadmap | 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 agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: Making abortion illegal goes against common sense? I would say that making abortion legal in call cases makes no sense...but ok. You also maintain that only religious people are against abortion...I know this isn't true because many of my friends or family are not religious and are against abortion. Not only that, there is an organiztion called lp4life (libertarians) and many of them are not religious and they argue against abortion on non-religious grounds which is what many of us do here on the forum. Stop making baseless claims because you have a quarrel with religion.\nYour unwanted children claim is also baseless. There has already been a debate on this and it is very clear (as he doesn't respond anymore) that abandoned babies will not increase due to abortion being illegal. Another baseless claim.\nI don't understand why you just make claims and then never back them up eventhough you say you use logic and common sense. Is it logical to oppose abortion only because you are mad at a religion?
Response: I'm not mad at religion, but I do pity the rationalizations it creates. | -3.42857 |
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: Gay marriage
Quote: Or perhaps Mach just doesn't understand the concept of an 'analogy.'
Response: False and irrelevant. How about you correct your position and support your claim with justification rather than just rambling on with rhetoric about what I do and do not understand?\n | 0.0 |
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 struggles to get donations and we cannot afford to lose such a vast source of information. | 0.871224643 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "people have had own minded to keep connection with their friends as a good relationship, meet them and talk by face to face directly", target argumentative component: "some people become geek, as too much of using email and messaging, without direct contacts" | attack |
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: Emily Thornberry : in order to stick to make sure our planet doesn't heat up more than 1.5 degrees
Proposition: in order to stick to make sure our planet doesn't heat up more than 1.5 degrees | Arguing |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | I understand that today we have gender norms that groups like feminists try to dismantle, and I agree that the view that women and men should be political, social, and economic equals for the same effort e.g., a man works eight hours and makes 80, a woman in the same job working eight hours should also make 80 . What I keep hearing from a lot of people, however, is that men and women are made to be equal. That viewing things that are biological to women like breastfeeding as their responsibility is a social construct that also needs to be dismantled. This makes no sense. We are biologically different a man can't produce milk from his chest to feed a baby , and even before social constructs were a thing, males females had different roles. Homo sapiens evolved to a point where they were hunters and the women were gatherers. We see this in nature too, where male and female have different responsibilities that are rarely seen switched. Yes, sometimes like with lions the females are the hunters, but these are still roles that seem to be based on sex. TL DR The idea that we both sexes are equal in their evolutionary purpose is absurd, because before social constructs, and even in animals, there are clear roles and responsibilities based on sex. | Regardless of societal gender norms, men and women evolved for different roles. |
Subsets and Splits