instruction
stringclasses 21
values | input
stringlengths 35
47.2k
| output
stringlengths 2
23.6k
|
|---|---|---|
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "It varies from individual to individual, how they utilize that period", target argumentative component: "A break can disturb the focus of students and prove detrimental" | attack |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "A professor means a researcher or an expert of a specific science subject", argumentative component 2: "he or she could push him/herself forward all the time" | Yes |
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: Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups
In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax. [1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world.
[1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
Candidate 1: "It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused.
[1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation, http://www.whofundsyou.org/about"
Candidate 2: "People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funders. A blanket obligation of all think tanks to reveal their funding allows for open discourse and thus more space to discuss the ideas themselves."
Candidate 3: "On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas."
Candidate 4: "It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank. If the think tank’s idea and conclusion is wrong, the fact that it is presented objectively makes it no less falsifiable. Think tanks do not exist in a vacuum, and for every false idea presented as positive there will be another think tank to scrutinise it. In either case, the consumer is given useful information in an accessible way that can still be questioned."
Candidate 5: "There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an organisation from having to be transparent to government about their finances. It is unnecessary to expose think tanks that do not act illicitly to the general public."
Candidate 6: "This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]
[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554"
Candidate 7: "Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation. [1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency cannot be extended to them. That would open the door to forcing other independent private institutions to reveal details of their organisation. Furthermore, think tanks rarely claim to be completely impartial. They usually have an agenda and are aligned with a political party. This concession in terms of impartiality merits equal concessions in terms of demanded transparency. At the end of the day it is their work that influences the agenda and that same work shows where their sympathies lie.
[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554"
Candidate 8: "Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majority, not a gain."
Candidate 9: "Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public."
Candidate 10: "This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]
[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554"
| There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an organisation from having to be transparent to government about their finances. It is unnecessary to expose think tanks that do not act illicitly to the general public.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: If you think I\xe2\x80\x99m nuts, then check this site out\xe2\x80\xa6.(this is fascinating! -- and DEADLY to evolutionists.)
Response: Since you bring it up, I do think that you are a nut. But your site is even nuttier. Not one shred of evidence that I found - just assertion. Moreover, the author doesn't seem to know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.\n | -0.333333 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Children should grow up in a big city!
It’s certainly better for children to grow up in a big city. Of course you need to choose a good neighborhood. I hold this belief because of two main reasons, academic and social reasons.
Some people thinks that if a child grows up in a big city they will be all day at home at the computer or at the video-game, but this is not true if you live in a neighborhood with other people about your age as I did. My friends and I used to play soccer, bike, climb trees and do a lot of other stuff every day. We did play video-games, but that wasn't our main activity. In a big city there are more kinds of people and more things to do.
I have a friend that grew up in the countryside. He said that he had to study a lot to pass the test to enter the university. This is another downside of growing up in the countryside. In a big city you have more qualified teachers and a better access to technology.
Growing up in the countryside is not such a good experience, you won’t know a lot of people, there are gossips everywhere, and your life will be really limited. If someday I have children, I’m absolutely sure that they will grow up in a good neighborhood of a big city and they will be very happy about it. | It’s certainly better for children to grow up in a big city
I hold this belief because of two main reasons, academic and social reasons
you won’t know a lot of people, there are gossips everywhere, and your life will be really limited
Growing up in the countryside is not such a good experience
they will grow up in a good neighborhood of a big city and they will be very happy about it
if a child grows up in a big city they will be all day at home at the computer or at the video-game
this is not true if you live in a neighborhood with other people about your age as I did
My friends and I used to play soccer, bike, climb trees and do a lot of other stuff every day
We did play video-games, but that wasn't our main activity
In a big city there are more kinds of people and more things to do
In a big city you have more qualified teachers and a better access to technology
He said that he had to study a lot to pass the test to enter the university
I have a friend that grew up in the countryside |
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? | in todays society where sexual identity is fluid, ender neutral language should be adopted to prevent misidentication and insullting others, however innocent the intention | 0.650587615 |
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: Presuming democracy is the only legitimate or worthwhile form of government is both inaccurate and unproductive
As much as the more liberal citizenry of many of the world’s democracies wish to believe otherwise, democracy as a system of government is not the only game in town. In fact, the growth of the strong-state/state-capitalism approach to government has gained much traction in developing countries that witness the incredible rise of China, which will before long be the world’s largest economy, flourish under an undemocratic model. [1] Chinas ruling communist party have legitimacy as a result of its performance and its historical role reunifying the country. [2] Democracies pretending they are the only meaningful or legitimate states only serve to antagonize their non-democratic neighbours. Such antagonism is doubly damaging, considering that all states, democracies included, rely on alliances and deals with other states to guarantee their security and prosperity. This has meant that through history democracies have had to deal with non-democracies as equal partners on the international stage, and this fact is no different today. States cannot always pick and choose their allies, and democracies best serve their citizens by furthering their genuine interests on the world stage. This policy serves as a wedge between democracies and their undemocratic allies that will only weaken their relations to the detriment of both. When the matter comes to surveillance technology, Western states’ unwillingness to share an important technology they are willing to use themselves causes tension between these states. Non-democracies have just as much right to security that surveillance technology can provide as the more advanced states that develop those technologies.
[1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-china-s-growth-model-will-fail-by-daron-acemoglu-and-james-a--robinson
[2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party?page=4
Candidate 1: "The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments
Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.
[1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/house-bill-would-ban-surveillan...
[2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011. http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/senior-mep-calls-for-freeze-on-arms-sale-to-north-africa/
[3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’ http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international-affairs/european-union/house-believes-lift-arms-sales-ban-china"
Candidate 2: "While Western states are willing to use surveillance technology to restrict their citizens, they do so always with a democratic mandate. That is the key difference. Democracies use surveillance technology to provide their people with the safety and security they demand, a security over which the people always have the veto of the ballot box. The non-democracy is not checked by any such power, and thus its use of surveillance technology faces no constraint."
Candidate 3: "Banning the sale of surveillance technology does not mean democracies are declaring all undemocratic regimes illegitimate. Rather, they are simply not allowing their technology to aid in the repression of people, which is the only use to which that technology is put in practice. Reform sometimes demands a firm hand, and while some regimes will be riled by what they perceive as an insult, the greater chance for dissidents to develop networks and voices is worth the cost."
Candidate 4: "Real politick is not the only consideration democracies should entertain when they engage in international relations. Indeed, the Western powers have sought since World War II to develop a system of international justice that recognizes the primacy of peoples’ rights irrespective of where they are born. This principle is constantly compromised as democracies jockey for influence with undemocratic regimes, bolstering those regimes and their repressive norms in the process. In order to be consistent, and to serve the true interests of justice, democracies must not aid undemocratic governments in the repression of their people."
Candidate 5: "Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad
It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]
Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.
[1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09
[2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weapons/Arms_Trade.html
[3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/house-bill-would-ban-surveillance-gear-sales-by-american-firms.html"
Candidate 6: "This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government
A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies serves ultimately as a statement of disapproval. It shows that the undemocratic regimes cannot be trusted with the ability to spy on their people. This signal has several effects. An example of this international shaming affecting is the international bans on the use of landmines. Various states created a framework, the Ottawa Convention, [1] in which their condemnation pressured nearly every other state, including authoritarian regimes, to follow suit. [2] Domestically it serves to bolster people’s faith in the system of rights they value highly and enshrine in law. They can point to this ban as an example of their government’s desire to make a better world and not to increase repression for the sake of power or profit. In the undemocratic states themselves, the regime leaders will be faced with a significant public relations blow as they come under criticism. This serves to embolden and empower holders of dissenting opinions and to spark pro-democratic discourse. In the international community it makes an emphatic value judgement on the merit of certain systems of government, namely the superiority of democracy and government accountability to the people, principles most non-democracies still pay some form of lip-service to. Overall, this policy boosts the credibility of democracy, while undermining the influence of undemocratic states.
[1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House (as the USA) would sign the Ottawa convention banning landmines’, http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international/house-usa-would-sign-ottawa-convention-banning-landmines
[2] Wexler, L. “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best Responses, And Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban Landmine and the landmine Ban Treaty”. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2003. http://www.ajicl.org/AJICL2003/vol203/wexlerarticle.pdf"
Candidate 7: "Advanced surveillance technology prevents dissidents from being able to organize and sue for freedom
High-tech surveillance technology has given repressive governments and police states a new lease on life. Now more than ever they can intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, ensuring that dissent is cowed for fear of the ever present threat of the security services. The vision of Orwell’s 1984 has become a living nightmare for people all over the world. Their power has made it extremely difficult for movements for reform, government accountability, and democracy, which have foundered when faced with these sophisticated security apparatuses (Valentino-Devries, 2011). [1] By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Thus China blocks access to the internet and to other forms of communications in Tibet to “ensure the absolute security of Tibet’s ideological and cultural realm”. It cuts the Tibetan people off from outside world so as to prevent any rerun of the instability that occurred in 2008, which China blamed on the influence of the Dalai Lama from outside. [2]
Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. The surveillance equipment on which these regimes rely is often only available from firms and governments in the democratic world where, by and large, technology is generally far more advanced than in the non-democratic world. Without access to these technologies, the regimes would be far more hard-pressed to keep rigid tabs on their citizens, allowing for the seeds of dissent to take root. Only then can the forces clamouring for democracy hope to be able to organise networks of activists, and to have their views considered by the state.
[1] Valentino-Devries, J. “US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses its Gear to Block Web”. Wall Street Journal. 29 October 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577001911398596328.html
[2] Human Rights Watch, “China: Attempts to Seal Off Tibet from Outside Information”, 13 July 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/13/china-attempts-seal-tibet-outside-information"
Candidate 8: "Oppressive regimes have turned to the use of advanced surveillance technology in response to activists’ learning to evade more conventional methods of surveillance, and by moving their organizations online. Western surveillance technology has filled a niche that was once open for dissidents. By placing this ban, even if the regimes turn back to old methods, they will still be hampered in the crushing of dissent. Furthermore, no regime has the resources or power to have physical surveillance as pervasive as the technology denied them would allow. Electronic surveillance therefore can cast a much broader net that would allow the government to repress many more people who would not be subject to more labour intensive physical surveillance."
| Real politick is not the only consideration democracies should entertain when they engage in international relations. Indeed, the Western powers have sought since World War II to develop a system of international justice that recognizes the primacy of peoples’ rights irrespective of where they are born. This principle is constantly compromised as democracies jockey for influence with undemocratic regimes, bolstering those regimes and their repressive norms in the process. In order to be consistent, and to serve the true interests of justice, democracies must not aid undemocratic governments in the repression of their people.
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: abortion
Stance: PRO
Aspect: cheaper | If we want less abortions , we should provide free contraceptives and educate people how to use them properly , since this reduces unplanned pregnancies and therefore lowers the number of abortions needed by reducing the demand for them through increased contraceptive usage . |
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: 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: "CAP maintains European food security
The subsidies to agriculture are important for maintaining self-sufficiency to enable Europe to feed its own citizens. In the world of fluctuating markets, global climate change, commodity crisis such in 2008, the state intervention is even more important because that means that the needed goods can become unavailable. Without EU’s help the prices can fluctuate wildly which can be of concern mainly for poorer parts of EU, where the major part of household spending is still food and non-alcoholic beverages. To prevent this kind of situations only the continent-wide policy can be an effective measure. The markets of other countries can compensate losses from others and vice versa. The result of a secure supply of affordable food has been that the amount an average EU household devotes to food has halved since 1960. [1]
[1] European Commission, ‘CAP – how much does it cons’ ‘Food Prices’, ec.europa.eu, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/faq/"
Candidate 2: "It protects rural communities
People in EU are hard to convince that staying in rural areas and working as a farmer is a viable life choice. The profit is often low, the starting costs are high and work is hard. The income of a farmer is usually around half of the average wage in a given country and the number of these farmers fell by 20% in the last decade. [1] By having CAP we have an additional incentive for the people to stay in villages. The direct payments help the people with the starting of business, subsidies helps them to sell their goods at reasonable prices. The process of urbanisation is at least slowed and that, by extend, helps to preserve traditional culture of such communities and thus diversity of European culture itself.
[1] Murphy, Caitriona, ‘Number of EU farms drops 20pc’, Independent, 29 November 2011, http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/number-of-eu-farms-drops-20pc-26797433.html"
Candidate 3: "CAP is costly and unfair to other industries
Currently CAP costs the European Union approx. 40% of its whole budget. However, this money is used to provide subsidies for industry that only employs less than 5 % of workforce and creates less than 2 % of GDP. [1] We can easily assume that nearly half of EU’s budget can be used more effectively and can, instead, be used to support other, more potential industries which can boost the currently sluggish economic growth. Moreover, the subsidies for European farmers are so high they can contribute up to 90 % of farmers’ pre-tax income. [2] No other industry has such privileges – when European coal and iron industry became uncompetitive and needed to be slimmed down, the European union did not subsidise the industry to such degree even though such action could have saved thousands of jobs.
[1] Charlemagne, ‘Milking the budget’, The Economist, 22 November 2012, http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21567122-even-times-austerity-europe-spends-too-much-subsidising-rich-farmers-milking-budget?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
[2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005, http://www.economist.com/node/5278374"
Candidate 4: "In the current interconnected world it is hard to imagine a situation when the EU will be unable to buy enough food for its citizens on the global market. Countries of the EU are among the richest in the world and have enough soft power to negotiate favourable terms of trade from developing countries in nearly any situation. [1] Even if the subsidies created by CAP were abandoned, the agricultural industry will hardly be decimated. The numbers of farmers may decline, there would be consolidation into bigger farms, however there always will be markets where European food will be sold – due its regional specifics, high quality or simply patriotism, when people buy food produced in their own country to support it.
[1] Zahrnt, Valentin, ‘Food Security and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Facts against fears’, Ecipe Working paper, No. 1, 2011, http://www.reformthecap.eu/sites/default/files/Food%20Security%20Zahrnt.pdf"
Candidate 5: "We can see from continuous decline of farms in Europe that the CAP has been ineffective in creating enough incentive for people to stay in villages and farms. And it is doubtful if even the reform of CAP can change this situation. In the last 40 years CAP was reformed in one way or another however the declining trend has still continued. It is reasonable to assume that leaving the agricultural sector without state interventions (which are basically CAP) will eventually result in some sort of stable equilibrium emerging with farmers who can make money from farming, or other activities remaining without subsidy."
Candidate 6: "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"
Candidate 7: "CAP protects the quality of the food in EU
The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP.
[1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-overview/2012_en.pdf"
Candidate 8: "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 9: "It doesn’t serve its purpose (subsidies to larger farmers)
The CAP as originally proposed was aimed to support small, local, family farmers which have difficulties with sustaining their business in competitive environment. The conference in Stresa in 1958 that helped define CAP’s objectives stated “Given the importance of family structures in European agriculture… all means should be taken in order to strengthen the economic and competitive capacity of the family enterprise.” [1] However, the current model of CAP gives direct payments to farmers according to area of their farms. That means that the major recipients of CAP are actually the biggest players in agricultural industry. According to Economist, 80 % of the subsidies go to 20 % of the richest farmers. [2] Therefore, the money is spent to support large companies and wealthy landowners who could easily compete in EU market even without such abhorrent support from EU taxpayers.
[1] Knudsen, Ann-Christina, ‘Romanticising Europe? Rural Images in European Union Policies’, Kontur, no.12, 2005, http://www.hum.au.dk/cek/kontur/pdf/kontur_12/ann-christina_lauring_kndusen.pdf p.52
[2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005, http://www.economist.com/node/5278374"
Candidate 10: "The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument.
[1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/16/tesco-burgers-off-shelves-horsemeat
[2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/03/08/Europes-food-scandals-multiply/UPI-38701362775293/"
Candidate 11: "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 12: "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 13: "It is unfair to new members of EU
Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries.
[1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011, http://www.euractiv.com/cap/eastern-eu-states-call-bolder-sp-news-506532"
| 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.
|
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: Natural selection is not proof of evolution by any means.
Response: Of course not. No evolutionary biologist ever claimed that it was. Evolution is a change in the alle frequency in a population over time - like in the case of the peppered moths. Over about 150 years the dark allele increased to almost the entire population and then it decreased again. That is evolution. It is quite apparent that natural selection was the probably cause. You see, no one has proposed another explanation that has stood up to examination. Majerus is trying to verify that the evolution really was the result of predation by birds. It seems a reasonable hypothesis but Majerus had several quibbles with Kettlewell's methodology even though he believes the hypothesis to be correct.\n | 2.8 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Communism vs. capitalism
Quote: The argument that child labour is necessary in some economies is a strawman, it was used when the unions here forced the changes in working conditions through.
Response: Unions fought to keep children out of work for the same reason they fought to keep blacks and women out of work - they want a monopoly on employment. | 1.16667 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.
Ironically, even Mexico recognizes this when it attempts to increase border enforcement along its own southern border with Guatemala1,2. If those policies are lawfully set by the people and legislature, then regardless of how efficacious a particular tool is, it is justified. It is clear that the fence is wildly popular – well over half of the United States supports it3 , and many individuals are so adamant about increasing border security that they are willing to make donations for these purposes4. The social contract of the United States means that the government is democratically elected and therefore accountable to its people. If they want to focus on securing the borders instead of providing more extensive welfare programs or reforming education or anything else they could be spending money on, that is their prerogative.
1Thompson, Ginger. “Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border.”
2Cutler, Michael. “Hypocrisy: Mexico Building Security Fence Against Guatemala.”
3Rasmussen Reports. “Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%.”
4Crawford, Amanda. “Arizona’s State-Owned Mexico Border Fence Attracts Donors From Across U.S.”
Candidate 1: "This assumes the fence is efficacious and therefore the cause of the reduction. It is not – there are numerous bypasses, ranging from simple ladders on pickup trucks to complex tunnels for the movement of people and drugs.1 While it may seem to be the case that the fence has caused the reduced numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross, in actuality this is because of the economic downturn in the United States.2,3 If there are no jobs, it stands to reason there is not going to be an influx of workers.
Even if it were efficacious, however, the idea that immigrants steal jobs is fundamentally flawed. Immigrants fill gaps in the domestic labour market.4 They are non-competitive for most types of jobs, such as supervisor positions.5 And anyways, most economists say that immigration grows the economy by expanding demand for goods and services that immigrants consume, and consequently this actually creates more jobs. While immigrants certainly may push down wages for some occupations, the net effect is to increase average wages for non-immigrant Americans.
Finally, the economies of many border towns on the United States’ side of the fence will suffer because of decreased demand for their goods and services.
1McGreal, Chris. “The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.”
2Associated Press. “U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.”
3Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. “Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.”
4Cowen, Tyler. “How Immigrants Create More Jobs.”
5Novak, Viveca. “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?”"
Candidate 2: "The border fence is a waste of money. It and the associated measures was given a budget of $1.2billion [i] and it is not likely to be a comprehensive fix. If the fence just covers current high crossing areas then these areas will simply move to more inhospitable areas or migrants will find other ways around – such as travelling through the gulf of Mexico by boat as occurs between in the Mediterranean for migrants travelling from North Africa to Europe.
[i] Weisman, Jonathan. "With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill.""
Candidate 3: "Safety arguments are a red herring; terrorism will not be effectively prevented by the erection of the border fence. We need a proactive strategy that gathers intelligence and works with counterterrorism officials abroad to disrupt recruitment and training centers for terrorist groups.1 If some immigrants can slip through, so can some terrorists. At any rate, the 9/11 hijackers and other Al-Qaeda terrorists traditionally have not come through the Mexican border but rather from abroad and by airplanes or seaports, or they are homegrown radicals. Spending billions of dollars in a vain series of attempts to seal ourselves in an impenetrable fortress simply helps terrorists fulfill their goals of making us live in a culture of perpetual fear. As for drug trafficking, this problem is largely born of the tremendous market for it that still exists in the United States. If the demand dried up, so would the suppliers; on the other hand, if there is still an incredibly lucrative market, no fence will stop them from ferrying large amounts of drugs over the border, and most of the weapons the narcotics traffickers use actually come from the United States as well.2 We need to look to other solutions besides simplistic fences.
1 Bruguire, Jean-Louis. "The holes in America's anti-terror fence."
2McGreal, Chris. "The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.""
Candidate 4: "Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing."
Candidate 5: "Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes."
| Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes.
|
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: First of all, we are supposed to be introducing ourselves, not starting up a topic. But let me kill two birds with one stone here.\nHi everyone, I\'m new here. And I love to debate. I got kicked out of one debate, because I won the debate on linguistics, and the girl got mad, because she lost, and banned me from the froum. Hopefully no one here is as immature as that. But anyway, thats my story, I\'m glad to be here. And I\'m ready to debate. And here is my first victim.\nI\'m against gay marriages. Why?! Because in order to mantain a healthy environment for children.(which they always seem to want to adopt) there has to be a healthy relationship. Now a child grows up, and sees two men/women dating eachother. That can confuse the child as to whether they should also be gay. It is not only harmful to the family environment, but also to society. And don\'t hand me that," My uncle is gay." Stuff. I had(he passed away) a gay uncle, have three gay cousins, and a gay aunt. Not my whole family is not gay, but it seems like I have quite a few in my family. Now I don\'t support what they do. Even though I love them because they are my family, I would not support them if they were to marry.
Response: And what evidence do you have that having two gay parents would confuse a child about weahter they should be gay? Did you know that the same percentage of children that were brought up by gay couples turn out to be gay as children who are brought up by straight couples? I would say that \ndestroys your conception that the kid would be confused.\nI know a number of people who were brought up by commited gay couples (admittedly not many), and not one of the ones I know turned out to be gay. | -3.2 |
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: it is almost like the government is playing Russian roulette with people's health
Proposition2: we need to balance the health needs against the economic needs of the country | Default Conflict |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "It is well known that the art and music are not bound by country border, and they are something that is shared by the people from every parts of this world and is symbols of various cultures", argumentative component 2: "art and music would broaden student's horizon and therefore make them thoughtful" | Yes |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "nowadays women are working in home as well as in the sky", target argumentative component: "women have proved themselves in every field whether it is indoor or outdoor" | support |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: good | Clones are just another way for companies to get more money from their customers without doing anything extra to improve on the product itself - nothing wrong with that , but when you see stuff like [ this ] ( http : //www.fasttech.com/products/3025/10013986/1408243-vs-rda-clone-by-tobeco ) , it makes me wonder why anyone would buy any other mod over such a simple design . |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: training | I think it 's a good idea because you can train your clone for months without having to do anything except jump in and out of hyperspace stations ( which is why we see them using jump drives ) . |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
This is a timely, informative, and well written article providing clinicians with practical advice about how to best advise and support patients with tics during these challenging times.
The authors navigate through the many uncertainties of the unfolding circumstances using the best available evidence as well as their own invaluable experience, according to the ancient motto ‘scientia et conscientia’.
I have little to say in terms of further improving this useful article.
As the authors rightly point out, anxiety is a common comorbidity that needs to be addressed with particular care, in consideration of its recognized role as tic-exacerbating factor.
A recent review article on telemedicine for hyperkinetic movement disorders covers tic disorders, and states that “the extent to which telemedicine facilitates multidisciplinary treatment needs to be further studied” (Srinivasan et al. 2020) 1 .
It is hoped that the current circumstances and the unprecedented measures (including social distancing) are also seen as an opportunity to improve our understanding of patients’ needs.
The authors might want to add their suggestions about gathering high quality information on remotely delivered clinical input. | Structure
Strength
Strength
Other
Recap
Other
Other
Todo |
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 EU as a trade bloc would be more inclusive to current and new members
The European project has gone too far for many European countries. For some such as Norway or Switzerland the EU has already gone far past the amount of integration they would be willing to allow. Even Member States are increasingly finding that the EU’s intrusiveness and the cost of supporting smaller economies outweigh any potential benefit. Britain has expressed this discontent particularly strongly. (11)
This is a problem for the European Union. The problem of its alienated Member States is only likely to get worse as it seeks to continue expanding: new countries will have increasingly divergent values and will be harder to integrate while deepening will mean more countries are left behind. In practice, this means that the EU will face massive barriers to its goal of integration, and compromise all its other goals in the process. The best solution then is to go back to a stage in the EU’s development that every country supports; the single market without the politics attached. This would bring the benefit of encouraging those who have been left out like Norway and Switzerland to join.
(11) “Goodbye Europe”, The Economist. 8 December 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless
Candidate 1: "It is important to remember that many areas of policy remain under national control and even those areas that are decided at the European level are agreed by the member states (9). The EU legislation, however, is important for creating trust between trading partners in the EU. Even if some of the laws seem trivial or unnecessary, it is the trust in the other countries’ compliance even in these laws, which creates a stable market in which actors can expect larger laws and agreements to be honoured. The political aspects of the union therefore complement the economic aspects.
As regards austerity, the British are implementing their own austerity policies, without Commission involvement, and are doing just as badly as anyone else (10). On the contrary, someone needed to sanitise the Greek economy, and it was evident that they were not going to do so themselves. EU decisions, as a whole, are preferable. We should remember that when countries agree to austerity as part of a bailout it is not a violation of sovereignty; they have the choice to say no and probably default as a result.
(9) Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen. “Politics in the European Union”, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press. 17 February 2011.
(10) Giles, Chris; Bounds, Andrew. “Brutal for Britain”, The Financial Times. 15 January 2012. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cc73ea0-3e04-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2igLfoxJI"
Candidate 2: "The reason that there is such trust in the status quo lies in that these countries have collaborated in a political union for decades. Once this structure has been removed, it is easy to turn protectionist and to start trade wars. This is precisely the source of the failure of trade blocs such as NAFTA. Without the presence of a political body, it was possible for the US to develop protectionist policies within the trade bloc framework. By subsidising their agricultural products to outcompete Mexico’s in Mexico itself, the US severely harmed its trade partner’s economy (14). This is a harmful form of trade. The EU benefits from its current more balanced, controlled and mutually beneficial structure.
(14) Faux, Jeff. “How NAFTA Failed Mexico”, The American Prospect. 16 June 2003. http://prospect.org/article/how-nafta-failed-mexico"
Candidate 3: "It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.
Distilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.
(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf"
Candidate 4: "It is not true that not being fully representative makes a political entity undemocratic. In national politics we elect representatives to then make decisions on our behalf rather than have constant referenda, or even rather than require unanimity within Parliament. We expect not to have perfect representation. Furthermore, states that feel disenfranchised always have the option of leaving the EU; in fact it is much easier than it would be to leave an unrepresentative nation state. It is important to remember that Member States have consented to acting within this framework.
Even if the political entity is flawed, it can always be improved. Much more power could be given to the European Parliament, and there are already plans for the President of the Commission to be elected through the Parliament. Moreover if turnout is a problem for the elected legislature’s legitimacy then this is a question of encouraging turnout which might happen organically due to increased relevance but if not could be managed if necessary through compulsory voting. Finally not being a flawless democracy must be weighed against not having an entity at all."
| It is uncertain how many countries would realistically want remain in a trade bloc that does not support democracy as a core value.
Distilling the EU to a trade bloc that does not care about democracy and human rights would run the risk of allowing in non-democracies which in turn would merely alienate most of its current members. Many EU countries would not wish to be associated with non-democracies. Even only concerning trade, many would not want to make trade concessions to undemocratic countries whose regimes they cannot trust, as this might jeopardise the reliability of their trade with this country. (12) As such there would be very few potential new members as a result of moving back to a trade bloc. The better solution is to bring the standard of democracy in neighbouring countries up to the point where they can join the EU. To encourage other democracies such as Norway to join there could be concessions made such as on the common fisheries policy.
(12) Mansfield, Edward D.; Milner, Helen V.; Rosendorff, B. Peter. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, American Political Science Review. Vol. 94, No. 2. June 2000. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf
|
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The manuscript titled “MSL: Facilitating automatic and physical analysis of published scientific literature in PDF format” addresses an important issue of extracting information from published manuscripts.
However, the following issues must be clarified before indexing.
In the text mining section authors say that there is no tool to perform physical and logical structural analysis of PDF files.
However, in the next paragraph they describe “Dolores” for logical structure analysis.
Authors should describe how their method is different than Dolores.
Legends of all the figures should be more descriptive so that figures are understandable on their own.
Each component of the figure should be described in the legend.
The results section is missing.
Is it integrated in the discussion section?
It is unclear what exactly the results were.
The article will be much clear if all the libraries (described on page 4 second paragraph) are described in the form of a table.
Authors should include a clear metric to estimate performance of the algorithm.
This can be achieved by comparison with existing tools or through comparative analysis.
A clear example showing the information extracted from several PDF files to address a biologically relevant example will be useful.
It is not clear whether the text extracted from the PDF files is actually coming from figure legends or related to the main body of the manuscript.
Also, how is this text organized?
The authors mention that unexpected and irrelevant images were extracted.
It is not clear how authors address that.
It is absolutely essential to address that.
Minor corrections:
Page 2 second column: The definition of MSL is not the same as described in the abstract | Structure
Recap
Other
Recap
Recap
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Other
Todo
Weakness
Weakness
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Structure
Weakness |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: State subsidies for journalism will make different journalistic organizations compete for those subsidies, which will likely take the form of organizations competing to please the government.; Topic: We should subsidize journalism | con |
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. | After President Trump called off a military strike on Iran for its downing of a U.S. military drone, some compared his decision to President Barack Obama’s shameful failure not to enforce his “red line” in Syria. Sorry, the two situations are completely different. Trump was right to show restraint, and his Iran policy is working. | After Trump called off a military strike on Iran for its downing of a U.S. military drone some compared decision to Obama’s shameful failure not to enforce his “red line” in Syria the two situations are completely different Trump was right to show restraint, and his Iran policy is working |
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. | Essentially everything on this planet depends on oil; food, transportation, heating & cooling, and basically every consumer item you can think of. The world economy cannot sustain high prices of oil without collapsing. We saw that very clearly in 2008 when the price of oil hit a high of $146/barrel in June, and by September of that year we were in a full blown financial crisis… If the price of light sweet crude oil [rises to, and] stays above $120/barrel, then you have only a few months before a major financial crisis unfolds. The financial crisis of 2008 was ‘solved’ by atrocious US Gov’t spending of more than a trillion dollars/year. That particular solution won’t be available to use in the next crisis. Does ‘the powers that be’ have another card up their sleeve for the next financial crisis? I don’t know, but I assume the answer is “no”. | Essentially everything on this planet depends on oil; food, transportation, heating & cooling, The world economy cannot sustain high prices of oil without collapsing. We saw that very clearly in 2008 when the price of oil hit a high of $146/barrel in June, and by September of that year we were in a full blown financial crisis… If the price of oil [rises to, and] stays above $120/barrel, then you have only a few months before a major financial crisis unfolds. The financial crisis of 2008 was ‘solved’ by atrocious US Gov’t spending of more than a trillion dollars/year. That particular solution won’t be available to use in the next crisis. Do the powers have another card up their sleeve for the next financial crisis? I assume the answer is “no”. |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: minimum wage
Stance: CON
Aspect: cost of living | If you raise the minimum wage too high then it will just cause prices on everything go up because companies have to pay more money so they can afford their employees which causes them to cut back hours and/or hire less people causing unemployment rates to skyrocket as well as making goods that we buy from other countries become much more expensive due to increased labor costs there . |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: specificity | , those disclosed by Invitrogen ) to amplify DNA fragments with defined specificities ; to clone such clones into appropriate vectors having an insert containing said fragment or segment of interest ; to test for desired protein solubility properties based on predicted changes in crystal structure measured at specific temperature during incubation time and/or growth rate change relative to initial concentration ; to screen for binding activity against epitopes present upon exposure to specified compounds ; to identify novel human antibodies useful as biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment of disease ; and to develop new vaccines that target these molecules . |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | There is a tendency that I’ve noticed for self proclaimed intellectuals to hail reading novels and non fiction books as the mark of an intelligent person. There is a general notion that reading books in print is more enriching than reading articles on the internet or even reading a book in PDF form. When browsing on the internet, I often will read a source which provides hyperlinks to many other resources so that I have access to whichever details I want as I desire. This makes the reading process more efficient and honestly more effective. In general, I would argue that books are a really ineffective form to store lots of detailed information on subjects seeing as they are not searchable and not very portable. Often, the contents of a book would be better organized as a collection of articles or entries anyway. | Reading books is not superior to other forms of reading |
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 use of meta data causes unintentional harm
The other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls. [1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa, [2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list.
[1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013, http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/full/srep01376.html
[2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/nsa-snooping-law-abiding
Candidate 1: "There is no physical risk
In terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue?"
Candidate 2: "You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications
Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent.
[1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/09/is-the-nsa-surveillance-threat-real-or-imagined"
Candidate 3: "Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK [1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US. [2]
[1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5, https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/how-mi5-is-governed/oversight/judicial-oversight.html
[2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center, http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html"
Candidate 4: "No one will ever actually look at the information
If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely.
[1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/10/what_me_worry_the_real_threat_behind_the_nsa"
Candidate 5: "Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else knows about it even if that information is added to some giant computer database? The information we wish to keep secret remains a secret, in the unlikely event that some analyst reads the information they are never going to broadcast it to others as keeping secrets is a part of what intelligence agencies do."
Candidate 6: "The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account."
Candidate 7: "Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies.
[1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/fbi_hoover_nsa_prism_verizon_metadata
[2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’."
Candidate 8: "There are safeguards to prevent misuse
In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1]
[1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013, http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/06/10/william-hague-prism-statement-in-full"
Candidate 9: "The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so."
| Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies.
[1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/11/fbi_hoover_nsa_prism_verizon_metadata
[2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’.
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: He had ALREADY MADE the animals. "now the Lord God HAD FORMED..." not "now the Lord God formed..." See the difference? He already HAD FORMED the animals before he brought them to Adam. He made the animals before Adam.
Response: It says had formed because the narrative is in the past tense. However, the preceding line says "I will" implying he had not made them as of that point. | 1.0 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The authors report on the usage of IDPs by postdoctoral scholars, which is both a timely and fundamental topic within the broader graduate and postdoctoral professional development community.
This work extends beyond the authors’ recently published article on IDP usage among doctoral students 1 to showcase how the instrument is currently being used by postdocs.
The aforementioned manuscript on doctoral IDP usage extensively discusses policy and other issues surrounding IDPs, while this manuscript is lean on discussion.
It would therefore benefit from including prior literature on correlates of success associated with postdocs who have written plans—which would have the added benefit of placing this work into a broader context (for example, see: Davis 2009 2 ).
There are a number of points that should be addressed, and they are outlined as follows:
- The survey instrument asks questions on a 5-point Likert scale of strongly agree, agree, neutral (neither agree nor disagree), disagree, & strongly disagree.
However, when analyzing the data, the authors report percentages either as ‘does not agree’ (also reported as ‘disagree’) or ‘agree’ - with ‘strongly disagree, disagree & neutral’ all grouped together as a ‘does not agree’ response.
It seems that lumping “neutral (neither agree nor disagree)” into the ‘does not agree’ category would skew results (both in this manuscript and the manuscript on doctoral IDP usage) towards ‘does not agree.’
It is recommended that the authors reanalyze the data and report the ‘neutral’ responses as a third category in order to more accurately reflect intended answers/percentages.
- I agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear how the authors calculated that 54% completed an IDP; like reviewer 1, I also calculated that 61% completed an IDP either with or without their PI.
Similarly, I also agree with reviewer 1 that it is unclear where the 38.4% value came from (percent of respondents that completed an IDP who found the tool helpful).
Furthermore, in figure 1, a value of 22.4% of all respondents (whether they complete an IDP or not) is listed as saying the IDP process is helpful to their career development.
Since “22.4%” also includes those who never completed an IDP, reporting it in this manner seems to bias perceptions of the tool as unhelpful.
- Aside from the unclear derivation of percentages discussed in point #2, the questions in the survey instrument do not seem to allow confident discernment of who actually completed an IDP.
For example, respondents who disagree with the question “I complete an IDP annually with my PI/advisor” could have actually completed an IDP with their PI at the beginning of their postdoc and/or possibly in year 3 of their postdoc—how much weight were respondents giving to the word ‘annually’?
Another question reads: “I complete an IDP but I do not discuss it with my PI/advisor” - could respondents complete two different IDPs - one with and one without their PI (and thus agree to both the former and latter questions)?
- The authors assert that the usefulness of an IDP has decreased since 2014, specifically comparing their results to that in (Hobin et al. 2014 3 ).
However, in the (Hobin et al. 2014) paper, an IDP’s overall value is reported either as ‘not helpful’ ‘neutral’ or ‘helpful’.
It seems that the results in this manuscript could be compared more accurately with the (Hobin et al. 2014) data by showing the ‘neutral’ responses, rather than lumping them with ‘does not agree’ (see point 1 above).
Additionally, it would be helpful to point out the limitations of comparing these two studies (ex: address key differences between the two survey instruments regarding how the IDP questions were asked (and how this might bias responses), address potential respondent audience differences, etc.).
- Like reviewer 1, I also feel that there are limited questions that address what one might consider IDP ‘effectiveness.’
’ The manuscript would thus be strengthened by discussing IDP indicators that have been previously reported in the literature (such as measures outlined by (Hobin et al. 2014) - ex: the value of an IDP in helping with self-assessment, helping identify career paths, helping identify skills to strengthen, etc.).
Furthermore, (Davis 2009 2 ) reports an in-depth analysis of results from a Sigma Xi Postdoc Survey - identifying many positive correlates of success associated with postdocs who develop a written plan at the outset of their careers (ex: higher publication rate, grant submission rate, better supervisor relationships, etc.).
Since the main point of this manuscript is to discuss the use and effectiveness of IDPs among postdocs, it would benefit from elaborating upon such postdoc-specific contextual literature - as well as other literature that documents the general benefits of goal-setting, which is a primary function of IDPs (Locke et al. 2002 4 ).
- (Minor) The authors indicate that “additional research is needed,” and it would thus be beneficial to clarify the research questions that should be addressed.
For example, it seems that it would be useful to determine the effects of various parameters on IDP effectiveness such as: 1) when in training an IDP is completed; 2) inclusion/ exclusion of IDP components (such as self-assessment, career exploration, skill-building, goal-setting, etc.); 3) prior experience with/completion of an IDP as a PhD student; 4) completing an IDP of their own accord versus doing so because it is required; 5) receiving training on how to create/implement an IDP; 6) using a specific IDP instrument (ex: myIDP) versus an institutionally-developed IDP, etc..
- (Minor)
As an additional point - since ‘IDP effectiveness’ is subjective as the authors point out, perhaps future studies should address better-defining these parameters so that common IDP evaluation methods can be adopted within the broader community.
It would also be especially helpful to ascertain what IDP tools are being used, and how they are being implemented so that standard ‘correlates of effectiveness’ could be tied to specific IDP instruments (or components) and the manner in which they are employed. | Structure
Strength
Recap
Other
Todo
Structure
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Weakness
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Other |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: chakra | `` Naruto : His mastery of the Rasengan allows him to produce many variations of the technique , each one more powerful than the last , making it extremely versatile . |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "But if the good people are not always rewarded, we will try to finish the movie or dramas to find out the end of the story", argumentative component 2: "we can’t always let good people be rewarded in movies or TV programs" | Yes |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: viable | It 's not like you can get away with using your ult on something else because it will still count towards your own survivability stats but being able to use it while having another meepo out there makes it much more viable than trying to keep one meepo alive all game long when everyone has their own . |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Citizens only have control over how their funds are spent or allocated if the spending is voluntary and direct, and therefore they cannot have individual control over how their money is spent if it is stolen by a tax collector. | Individual citizens have little control over the government employs its tax take; meaning it can be used for ends they find immoral or wasteful. |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The authors have reported two cases meliodosis in an area in which this disease was not believed to occur and make an important point about paucity of diagnostic technology in the region.
Abstract:
- “ We report the first two cases of fatal melioidosis in this region... ”
The phrasing of this sentence implies that these are the first actual cases of fatal meliod in the region, rather than the first formally diagnosed cases.
It currently implies that Meliod is a new/emerging disease to this region rather than a new diagnosis of a condition which is likely to have been present, but unrecognised.
Presentation:
- “ Presented below are two fatal case reports... ”
The case reports were not fatal.
"Presented below are two case reports of fatal...” would be better.
- The cases are a little brief on detail and if possible, it would be nice to make the corrections/additions suggested by the other two reviewers.
Having said that, the weakness of the case descriptions do not detract from the message regarding the description of Meliod in this setting.
Diagnosis:
- This is a challenging condition to diagnose and it is important to have a little more detail here – reassuring readers that this really was B. pseudomallei is the most important part of this paper.
The authors should have described the colonial morphology of the pathogen as B. pseudomallei has a characteristic appearance (although I would discourage them from re-culturing it simply to answer this point unless there is a safe laboratory environment to do so).
It would also have been useful to record the API20NE score (both the 7 digit number and the percentage ID).W
What does SMRU stand for?
Lastly, what confirmatory test did MORU perform?
Management:
- It is a little unusual that management follows the discussion.
In particular, the last 2 sentences are conclusions and they should be separated and labelled as such. | Structure
Recap
Structure
Recap
Recap
Recap
Structure
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Other
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Structure
Weakness
Todo |
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: Universal benefits of human rights
All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there. [1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852. [2]
[1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997
[2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995
Candidate 1: "Relative perceptions of human rights
If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.
[1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.
[2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.
[3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.
[4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.
[5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010."
Candidate 2: "Danger of dogma
Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations. [1] Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful.
[1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006."
Candidate 3: "It is possible to establish a hierarchy of rights whereby only the most important are the 'fundamental' human rights. The fulfilment of the needs we all cannot live without, such as food, shelter and security of person, should be given the greatest priority, as they are all equally necessary for life, and need not be balanced against each other as they are all equally necessary."
Candidate 4: "Universal human nature
Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection."
Candidate 5: "Fundamental human rights were 'new' to all cultures once, but this does not mean that they have not always been an underlying fact. Arguments surrounding different cultural perceptions of rights and 'cultural relativism' are almost universally used by the powerful interests in certain cultures to justify their abuse of the human rights of those with less power in their cultures, for example leaders of authoritarian regimes who protect their own power at the expense of the freedom of their people and justify it on the basis of 'Asian values'. The recognition of fundamental human rights will always require change in a culture or locality that did not previously recognise them, but this does not mean that they are not universal on the basis of needs and desires that do exist in all cultures."
Candidate 6: "Human rights contradictions
Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other."
Candidate 7: "The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]
[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011."
Candidate 8: "Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'."
Candidate 9: "The labelling of a right as 'fundamental' ensures it is protected against opportunistic or populist attacks which may not fully consider the long term. As long as we limit our definition of 'fundamental rights' to those things needed and desired by all humans universally, we should avoid enshrining 'rights' which are only needed in some times and places."
Candidate 10: "There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure."
Candidate 11: "Universal individual desires
Certain desires, such as the desire for happiness, are universal to all human beings. Even if they actively deny them to others, every individual works towards the fulfilment of these desires for himself, and recognise that the denial of this fulfilment is harmful to himself. For example historically slave-owners still desired freedom of movement and labour for themselves, even if they denied it to their slaves on the basis of selfish interests. Therefore, because all humans desire happiness for themselves, and also desire the means to this end such as freedom of speech and the freedom to make their own choices, there exists a universal basis of desire for human rights in every individual. The enshrinement of 'fundamental human rights' simply universalizes what every individual acknowledges for himself: that the denial of certain rights is always harmful. This already even has a basis in the 'Golden Rule', to not do what is harmful to yourself to others, which can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition. [1]
[1] Blackburn, Simon. “Ethics: A Very Short Introduction”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. p.101"
| The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]
[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.
|
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: By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate.
This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security council resolutions due to the deadlocked nature of the council. In the 20 years since there have been over 1300 resolutions.1 The negotiation process would also be significantly longer. As a result the peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step.
1 Wikipedia, United Nations Security Council resolution,
Candidate 1: "The EU is one of the world's largest trade blocs, has the world's largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people.
The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined and at the same time, the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena."
Candidate 2: "By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. There are also the rebels in the Arab countries. There are a lot of concerns and the developed countries should give the developing ones the opportunity to participate in the process of their discussion and solution."
Candidate 3: "The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context, and given its goal of (and success in) creating everlasting peace on the continent, it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. Furthermore the EU is ever closer to a political union – “German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said his country is willing to discuss greater harmonisation of eurozone tax policy, adding that the next decade is likely to see Europe take significant steps towards closer political union.” [1] Therefore it is simply a normal step for the EU to have a say in the international affairs.
[1] Willis, Andrew. 'Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years', 13/12/2010, http://euobserver.com/19/31485"
Candidate 4: "There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones."
Candidate 5: "There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council.
There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1]
[1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003' http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Reform.doc"
Candidate 6: "The current Security Council doesn't reflect the economic reality of the 21st century.
The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. They are the 3rd and 4thworld economies. Furthermore these two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget – “The three largest contributors to the United Nations, the US (22.000% of the UN budget), Japan (12.530%) and Germany (8.018%) thus together finance some 43% of the entire UN budget.” [1] Meanwhile Brazil and India have emerged as major economies and stable democracies over the past decade, and deserve recognition for their global importance.
[1] Contributions to the United Nations budget http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Friedenspolitik/VereinteNationen/StrukturVN/Finanzen/Uebersicht.html"
Candidate 7: "It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It maybe hard to achieve consensus on what exactly to be the change in the UNSC, but the new international environment requests that. This is supported by a lot of leading politicians and leaders in a global aspect. "The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform" 1"The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization." 1 (Dmitry Medvedev)
1 "The reform of the United Nations Security Council: What role for the European Union?" Bureau of Public Affairs (USA) , June 20, 2005,
2 Address to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly 23/09/2009,"
Candidate 8: "A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members.
In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. This means that there are many countries who do not have anyone on the security council that has similar priorities to them, their views may well be unrepresented."
Candidate 9: "The Security council needs to be more democratic.
At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1]
[1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11023.doc.htm"
| There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones.
|
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 ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines
The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. [1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.
[1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/01/why-a-global-ban-on-land-mines
Candidate 1: "That is true if we are discussing a single tripwire or booby trap. But the argument avoids the real point of landmines – blanket deployment over very wide areas, making them impassable for military units in the short term, and deadly for the indigenous population in the long term. Nobody rigs up a few thousand pressure plates at a time. Removing landmines from the available military options would mean that this kind of deployment would become impossible – it would mean the end of the mine field."
Candidate 2: "North Korea has an extensive tunnel network under the DMZ that will facilitate the circumvention of the largest minefield on Earth, if the North Koreans were ever stupid enough to attempt invasion (and there is nothing to suggest that they are going to). This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too."
Candidate 3: "Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place.
That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will. Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them."
Candidate 4: "Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective. The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks. [1]
These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature. Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history.
[1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway"
| Faith in these so called ‘smart’ mines is hugely misplaced. Conditions under testing will always vary from those in the field, where all is confusion and areas of deployment are often not properly recorded or marked. Even if they work as claimed, there is no guarantee that regimes that use them will wish to deactivate them upon ceasefire, if left in the territory of a neighbour or enemy with whom a dispute still smoulders. The equipment required for deactivation may be lost or destroyed. The best way to ensure that these weapons aren’t left in the soil is never to put them there in the first place.
That some users might be responsible is not good enough, since if anyone has landmines everyone will. Even that assumes that it is possible to be a ‘responsible’ user of landmines – once they are in the ground the user has lost all practical control over them. The only way to take back control is to disarm them.
|
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? | organ trade would increase the supply of organs. | 1.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.
Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.
1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787
Candidate 1: "The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.
1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86
2, Ibid"
Candidate 2: "A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army."
Candidate 3: "A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system."
Candidate 4: "Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case."
Candidate 5: "A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.
1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26"
| A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.
1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26
|
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: those decisions were flawed in that there was no real understanding of the complexity of what then had to come next
Proposition2: there was a real need to degrade the capability of Al-Qaeda | Default Conflict |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: telemarketing is a easy way for people to learn about services and products that they maybe unaware of; Topic: We should ban telemarketing | con |
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: If a naturalistic interpretation of natural events and processes is ever to be replaced, it is more likely that it will be by a newer, better evolution of the naturalistic concept than by goddidit.
Response: This is true from the atheistic and secular humanist perspective since they will grasp at any natural explanation, no matter how flimsy and shallow rather than the spiritual explanation. But it doesn't answer the specific question I asked at all. | -2.8 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she can abstain from sex. ;)\nIt works!
Response: She could, but not all do :) Despite the fact that it works, there are still unwanted pregnancies :) That doesn't change the fact that a pregnancy would not be pleasant to a woman who does not want to be pregnant :)\nForcing pregnancy by law is a step toward fascism. | -1.2 |
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: Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part.
The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.
Candidate 1: "Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .
[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682
[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml
[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml
[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania..."
Candidate 2: "Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders [2] .
Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues [3] . The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations [4] .
[1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_mov...
[2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012, http://fco.innovate.direct.gov.uk/countries/czech-republic/travel_advice...
[3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu...
[4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu..."
Candidate 3: "Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created. [1]
[1] Europol, ‘About Europol’, https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/history-149"
Candidate 4: "While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area."
Candidate 5: "Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism."
Candidate 6: "The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS) [1] and Europol.
[1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System"
Candidate 7: "Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not being a part of the passport free area does not have any negative effects."
Candidate 8: "While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part [1] . This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.
[1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk , 9 April 2003, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/196/1..."
| While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part [1] . This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.
[1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk , 9 April 2003, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/196/1...
|
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? | many parts of the whale provide useful goods. it helps the economy in certain locations. | 0.940896759 |
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: And yet, even though creationists ask for detailed lists of every creature in transition over a period of several million years, I have never found a single creationist who can trace his ancestors back to Adam, a period of only about 6,000 years. The best I can do is to trace my ancestors back to the 1600s.
Response: My mom can only trace her family back a few generations. By the time we get to the clan that lived in Ohio in the middle of the 19th century, the records get very confusing and very incomplete. By creationist logic, we must then accept that my ancestors, white Americans, were specially created in North America by God. | 2.0 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: executive compensation is a farce and just a way for the richer to avoid taxes while paying themselves undeserving amounts of money and awards without a cap.; Topic: We should limit executive compensation | pro |
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: A long ruling and ruthless dictator was toppled.
Gaddafi was an oppressive ruler who led Libya for 42 years. The country had no Parliament, political parties, or NGO’s and no civil society [1].
He ruled Libya with an iron fist, eliminating any political opposition, restricting people’s rights and worst of all supporting different terrorist groups around the world. The same man was responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people [2] and he supported the leadership of Iddi Amin a dictator who killed masses in Uganda.
His leadership posed a threat not only to Libya but to countries around the world. Western intervention in the Libyan civil war paved a clear path for the downfall of Gaddafi’s rule. We should consider the downfall of such a dictator to be a success and benefit to Libya and all who Gaddafi threatened.
[1] Neil, MacFarquhar, ‘An erratic leader, brutal and defiant to the end’ nytimes.com, 20 October 2011
[2] BBC News South Scotland, ‘Colonel Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie Shooting’, bbc.co.uk, 23 February 2011
Candidate 1: "Gaddafi was not deliberately killing civilians but rather targeting armed rebels fighters who were targeting his government. In his words he said he would show no mercy to rebels and did not speak about civilians.
When pro Gaddafi forces regained control of Brega and Zawiyah, there was no bloodshed reported or any conflict harming civilians [1]. We don’t know what would have happened had Gaddafi regained control of Benghazi, but it is likely there would have been no bloodbath.
[1] RT news, ‘Gaddafi gaining ground in battle, losing on information front’, rt.com, 11 March 2011"
Candidate 2: "Ushered in the liberation of Libya.
The uprising sparked off as a concern for freedom in the country, people were tired of the oppressive regime and wanted to be liberated. This could not happen by people power alone; Gaddafi was willing to crack down to prevent it like Assad in Syria did.
Western intervention in the civil war helped the citizens gain power and force to fight for their rights, by providing them with training, intelligence and logistics among others hence ejecting the oppressive leadership a symbol for liberation.
After the civil war, people were able to participate in an election of the national assembly considered free and fair for the first time in Libya[1]. The part of the Mo Ibrahim index that rates participation and human rights rose from 20% in 2010 to 30.5% in 2012 [2]. More democratic and accountable government institutions have been set up, NGO’s welcomed and civil society empowered. Libya is becoming much freer with freedom house upgrading the country from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ [3].
[1] BBC news Africa, ‘Libya election success for secularist Jibril’s bloc’, bbc.co.uk, 18 July 2012
[2] Mo Ibrahim foundation, ‘Ibrahim index; Libya’, moibrahimfoundation.org
[3] ‘Freedom in the World 2013’, Freedom House, 2013"
Candidate 3: "Far from creating a liberated and free democracy western intervention has set Libya on the path to becoming a failed state. The country is today ranked among the most insecure countries in the world [1]. Two years after the war, The country has not managed to form a unified police force or a professional army, and it has even formally recognised several of the militias, entrusting them with security tasks [2]. It may be better but freedom of information in Libya is still under threat [3]? The threat is simply different; less from the state, and more from a chaotic situation. Freedoms are also not gaining ground in all areas; notably there are concerns that religious freedom is declining with the country moving towards Sharia law, and with minorities being attacked and forced to convert to Islam [4].
[1] The New York times, ‘Clashes and car bombings highlight insecurity across Libya’, nytimes.com, 4 November 2012
[2] Euronews, ‘Libya’s internal insecurity appears long-term militia problem’, euronews.com, 10 October 2013
[3] World press freedom index, ‘Middle east and North Africa’, rsf.org
[4] Nzwili, Fredrick, ‘Christians in Libya cast anxious eye at religious freedom’, The Washington Post, 10 January 2014"
Candidate 4: "The no-fly zone on its own was not sufficient to protect civilians on the ground. It was the responsibility of NATO to take further action aimed at protecting people whose lives were at risk from gaddafi’s soldiers. This NATO did by attacking military targets such as artillery. This was also part of the UNSC agreement “permit all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1].
Specifically, NATO targeted military weapon stores and facilities not homes and camps as Gaddafi’s military did. 72 civilians were killed during this bombing campaign [2] a small number compared to the thousands of sorties. No one can know how long the conflict would have lasted without NATO intervention, it is therefore impossible to state that the conflict lasted six times longer than it would have without NATO involvement.
[1] Richard, Roth, ‘UN Security council approves no fly zone in Libya’, cnn.com, 18 March 2011
[2] BBC news Africa, ‘Nato hits back at Libya's civilian deaths report’, bbc.co.uk, 14 May 2012"
Candidate 5: "Russia’s long standing antagonism with the west is not new [1] and Libya is not the cause. Its reaction towards the Syrian conflict is driven by a complex mixture of political and economic interests including having a naval base in the country [2].
The UN security council has also continued to ensure that its operations are successful and have acted on the Syrian crisis too.
It approved a mission to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles in Syria and evacuate people from Homs. This shows how the UNSC usually works; where the major powers can agree they do and act, where they can’t the council does nothing. This would have happened in Syria regardless of what occurred in Libya; Syria is simply worth more strategically to Russia than Libya was.
[1] Con, Coughlin, ‘While Putin still believes the west is still an enemy, Russia will not change’, telegraph.co.uk, 3 December 2010
[2] Nicholas, Kosturos, ‘What Drives Russia’s Unrelenting Position on Syria?’, americanprogress.org, 13 August 2012"
Candidate 6: "The Malian conflict is not new and has been on for a long period notably the 1960, 1996 and the 2006 rebellions[1]. It did not break up from the Libyan conflict and additionally the Tuareg were not the only rebels involved in this crisis. The insecurity reports across Libya is typical for every emerging democracy in transition and cannot be a reason to claim that it is not stable. Even the Libyan people accept it with 71% of the population being optimistic about the current situation [2].
[1] Mats,Utas, ‘The Malian crisis; Causes, consequences, responses’, wordpress.com 7 May 2013
[2] JMW Consulting, ‘Believing in Democracy: Public Opinion Survey in Libya’, National Democratic Institute, August 2013, p.6"
Candidate 7: "Created a large divide in the UN security council.
The UN security council approved humanitarian intervention in Libya that ensured a no fly zone to protect civilians from government attacks. However, the west went beyond the resolution’s intent and turned it into a de facto campaign for regime change [1].
This made Russia and China who initially had opposed any intervention feel cheated. The divide has affected the response of the security council to other crises notably in Syria where over a hundred thousand people have been killed and an even larger number displaced. Russia and China have vetoed resolutions on Syria three times [2] fearing that it may end like the Libyan case a fact that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stressed; “Russia will not allow a repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria” [3].
Such divisionism has destroyed the credibility of the security council [4] and created an unintended casualty of the Libyan intervention.
[1] David, Blair, ‘Putin thinks Cameron conned him over Syria, he won’t allow that to happen again with Syria’, telegraph.co.uk, 2 August 2012
[2] Rick, Gladstone, ‘Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions’, nytimes.com, 19 July 2012
[3] Global research, ‘Russia Will not Allow Repetition of “Libya Scenario” in Syria’ globalresearch.ca
[4] Mick, B. Krever, ‘Why won’t the UN Security council intervene in Syria?’, cnn.com 14,January 2012"
Candidate 8: "Intervention prevented an impending bloodbath in Benghazi.
From the day of the uprising in Benghazi, the government was committed to fight back till the end. Gaddafi asserted that he will chase down the protesters and cleanse house by house while his son said that rivers of blood would flow with thousands of deaths, if the uprising didn’t stop [1].
Military jets and helicopter gunships were indiscriminately unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
The resolution of a no fly zone passed by the security council weakened and prevented government forces from killing people and destroying cities using air strikes[2]. Air strikes went on to destroy artillery, armor and other weapons that could be used for indiscriminate attacks. The intervention therefore stopped large scale civilian bloodshed.
[1] The middle east in revolt, ‘Gaddafi’s son; last gasp of Libya’s dying regime?’, time.com
[2] Los Angeles Times, ‘Obama on Libya; Intervention prevented more bloodshed’, latimes.com, 28 March 2011"
Candidate 9: "The intervention backfired.
NATO’S action increased the conflict’s duration about a six fold and the death toll at least sevenfold, but also increasing human rights abuses, humanitarian suffering, and weapon proliferation in Libya and neighbouring countries [1]. The UN security council approved the resolution for protecting civilians in Libya [2] but NATO just did the opposite. Their operation came at the expense of increasing harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately including those in Sirte who posed no threat to civilians as Sirte remained in government hands right to near the end of the conflict and continued to support the rebels offering them weapons, military training, intelligence and troops on ground [1], even when they rejected cease fire offers from the government that would have helped end the crisis and spare civilians.
[1] Alan, Kuperman, ‘Lessons from Libya; How not to intervene’, harvard.edu September 2013
[2] Robert, winnet and Richard Spencer, ‘UN approves no fly zone as British troops prepare for action’, telegraph.co.uk, 17 March 2011"
Candidate 10: "Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].
Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.
[1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011
[2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014"
Candidate 11: "It increased conflict and instability in Libya and its neighbours.
The toppling of Muammar Gaddafi has had unpleasant side effects. Gaddafi’s army involved a large number of mercenaries, many of them Tuaregs from northern Mali. When Gaddafi was overthrown they returned to their homeland without having given up their arms. These returnees helped spark a rebellion that deposed a democratically elected president under a coup and prompted yet another western intervention[1].
In Libya the situation never fully calmed down with the country left dealing with militia groups and terrorist attacks. The US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed, Prime minister Ali Zaidan was kidnapped and there are reports of ongoing insurgencies [2]. Previously Libyans may have lived under an eccentric dictator but at least they had order and stability.
[1] Owen, Jones, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success now here we are engaging in the blowback in Mali’, independent.co.uk, 13 Jan 2013
[2] Chris, Stephen, ‘Assassination pushes Libya towards civil war, two years after Gaddafi’s death’, thegurdian.com, 19 October 2013"
| Intervention was approved under the doctrine responsibility to protect and it aimed at protecting civilians in Libya [1]. While toppling Gaddafi was successful, it did not help in stabilising Libya. Many would prefer stability under a dictatorship than chaos. The situation today is even worse than during Gaddafi’s regime, with insecurity and chaos across the country, increased reports of human rights violation and terrorism [2].
Intervention however did not restore peace and did nothing to help or protect civilians in the longer term.
[1] The economist, ‘The lessons of Libya’, economist.com, 19 May 2011
[2] The fault lines, ‘Libya; state of insecurity background reading’, Aljazeera.com, 14 February 2014
|
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Should good people are rewarded and bad people are punished in movies or dramas?
When we watch movies or dramas, some of us like to see good people have a good ending and bad people are punished. While there are also some people who do not like this. Personally, I prefer to see good people get rewarded. However, if the good people always get an happy ending, I don’t think it’s proper.
First, if all the story end up in the same way, it will be boring. If good people always win, we can guess the ending of the movies or dramas. Then we will feel less interested in them. But if the good people are not always rewarded, we will try to finish the movie or dramas to find out the end of the story. For example, Hollywood stories usually have a happy ending like a hero beats a crime and get a girl. But now many people, including me, have been tired with it. I don’t want to see the same kind of ending again and again. So we can’t always let good people be rewarded in movies or TV programs.
Even in the real world, good people can get a bad ending sometimes. And I think it happen more often in the real world than in those movies. So if children always watch the TV programs that good people get rewarded, they may think it will be true in the real world. They will be misleading by those movies. And they may act like good people in order to get reward. Once they find the good people are not always get rewarded, they may feel upset and not to be a good person. But in fact, the good people do good things no matter the ending is good or not. So we should tell this to the young children to avoid the misunderstanding.
In fact, those good endings sometimes are helpful. Some people may be encouraged to do good things. But like I said, this kind of behavior won’t last long, because someday they will realize the truth. So I suggest we should show people the truth in the stories. And if they can, they will be good people no matter how the story ends.
Based on my arguments above, I think movies and TV programs should present different stories in which good people get reward or get nothing. | if all the story end up in the same way, it will be boring
if the good people always get an happy ending, I don’t think it’s proper
If good people always win, we can guess the ending of the movies or dramas
we can’t always let good people be rewarded in movies or TV programs
Then we will feel less interested in them
But if the good people are not always rewarded, we will try to finish the movie or dramas to find out the end of the story
Hollywood stories usually have a happy ending like a hero beats a crime and get a girl
But now many people, including me, have been tired with it
I don’t want to see the same kind of ending again and again
if children always watch the TV programs that good people get rewarded, they may think it will be true in the real world
They will be misleading by those movies
they may act like good people in order to get reward
Once they find the good people are not always get rewarded, they may feel upset and not to be a good person
the good people do good things no matter the ending is good or not
we should tell this to the young children to avoid the misunderstanding
Even in the real world, good people can get a bad ending sometimes
it happen more often in the real world than in those movies
those good endings sometimes are helpful
Some people may be encouraged to do good things
this kind of behavior won’t last long
someday they will realize the truth
we should show people the truth in the stories
if they can, they will be good people no matter how the story ends
movies and TV programs should present different stories in which good people get reward or get nothing |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | My first post, so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. It is common to hear people discussing sports, TV shows, movies and books. So I assume that people care about entertainment a considerable amount, which I believe is unjustified because the outcomes of the entertainment source doesn't effect their life in any meaningful way. It may effect their mood but that is but that is because they have unjustly invested themselves into the plot in the first place. I have heard the argument that entertainment serves as a distraction relief from their own life as they invest in others' lives. But I fail to see how this is healthy, wouldn't it be better to face what they are trying to distract themselves from? Whether the basketball team wins or loses the next game, or the character has a break up it isn't going to effect your life in any meaningful way. So why do people invest so much into these stories, and talk about them non stop? gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing | Attention to entertainment isn't justified |
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: Sigma, I was only joking. It hit me this morning though that if I\'m willing to talk about abortion without bringing up God, I wonder if the Pro-Choicers could argue their position without bringing up "women\'s rights". ;-)
Response: Women's rights actually exist, unlike the Christian God. | 33.3333 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: Oh so EVERYTHING except creation works without His help, I get it God makes everything. So God made our minds, and God made the scientific ideas that come into our minds, so God helped us understand all the things we do about science. But oh I guess that evil evolution one is the one scientific thought that came from Satan...obviously!!!
Response: You know what, you may be on to something with that Satan idea. Maybe he worked through Darwin to effectively divide believers over the issue of creation. \nI am going to ask you one more time, where is the proof for evolution? Where are the milllions of fossilized links with slow and obvious changes supposedly caused by the "evolving process"? It is useless to debate with you if you aren\'t going to give me any CONCLUSIVE evidence. | 0.166667 |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: minimum wage
Stance: CON
Aspect: employment | The authors find that the effect of a higher minimum wage on employment is small and statistically insignificant , but they do not estimate how much larger it would be if other factors were held equal or greater ( i.e. |
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? | foster care within a loving family can benefit a child that has experienced hardships in their life, teaching them what it is like to be cared for and loved. | 0.973082343 |
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. | While in the 1980s oil was considered “the only commodity whose sudden cutoff would have a drastic effect on national welfare or on economic activity,”4 the 2030s come with the image of a world in which the sudden cutoff of Russian gas to Europe will have similar disastrous effects on the economies of many European and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states. This monograph argues that Russian control of the natural gas supplies and of the export infrastructure systems of natural gas to Europe gives tremendous leverage to Russia in imposing its national security policy. If in the traditional security environment the use of military force was the Union of Soviet Socialist ixx Republic’s (USSR) preferred method of political coercion, in the contemporary security environment Russia is struggling with a weaker military that no longer represents a threat to the North Atlantic Alliance. This monograph emphasizes that Russia over came this major vulnerability by developing the capacity to use unilateral economic sanctions in the form of gas pricing and gas disruptions against many European NATO member states. It agrees with many scholars and politicians alike who fear that Russia will lever age its monopoly of natural gas to gain political concessions; and it supports the viewpoint that “Russia’s energy-centered foreign policy is not limited to the states of the former Soviet Union and is clearly designed to increase its leverage in key geostrategic theaters and over United States allies.” While Russian officials insist that these fears are overblown, skeptics believe that “if there were a serious enough dispute, the Russians might do just that [use its energy security leverage against NATO member states].”¶ The concerns of these skeptics cannot be dismissed without an unbiased examination of the scarcity of natural gas in the contemporary security environment, of the salience of natural gas in Russia’s national security strategies, and of the natural gas pipeline politics in Eastern and Central Europe. To address these questions, the monograph has been separated into four chapters. Chapter 1 will demonstrate that like oil in the traditional security environment, under certain conditions, natural gas can serve as an effective unilateral instrument of state power in the contemporary security environment, and that its disruption by Russia will prove deadly to the economies of many NATO member states in Eastern and Central Europe(traditionally, Russia’s sphere of inuence). Chapter 2will explain why Russia perceives NATO as a hostile¶ Xi alliance, and how Russia uses natural gas as an instrument of coercion in its sphere of influence. In Chapter3, a look at Russia’s use of natural gas as a national security instrument of coercion in negotiations with Ukraine will help energy security analysts determine the conditions under which Russia will leverage its energy superpower position in its relations with European Union (EU) and/or NATO member states. Additionally, a look at Russia’s failures in the use of such coercion in Ukraine will assist NATO member states in Eastern and Central Europe to identify ways to reduce the threat of disruption of Russian gas supplies. Finally, Chapter 4 will expose the processes Russia uses in the context of natural gas negotiations to bribe Western European nations –such as Germany, France, and Italy –to divide the NATO Alliance, and to rule over its traditional sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe. | cutoff of Russian gas to Europe will have disastrous effects (NATO) states Russian control of supplies and infrastructure gives tremendous leverage to Russia in imposing its national security policy Russia capacity to use unilateral economic sanctions in pricing disruptions against many NATO states. Russia will lever age its monopoly of natural gas to gain political concessions Russia’s energy-centered foreign policy is designed to increase its leverage in key geostrategic theaters and over United States allies.” Russia might [use its energy security leverage against NATO member states] its disruption by Russia will prove deadly to the economies of many NATO states Russia uses natural gas as an instrument of coercion in its sphere of influence Russia uses gas to divide the NATO Alliance |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: abortion
Stance: PRO
Aspect: children | There are plenty of children out there aborted before birth . |
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? | nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the planet multiple times over, they need to be abolished | 1.0 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: University education should be only available for good students
The purpose of education is always a controversial topic among people and society, especially in high level such as college or university. Some people think that all students should deserve to be educated at this level. However, in my opinion, it should be better to leave this type of type of training for a certain group of good, knowledgeable learners.
First, focusing only on talented students is a better option because it helps academic institutions maintain their high education quality. Unlike middle school or high school, university and college require far a lot of ability and skills to keep up with an enormous amount of complex knowledge. In fact, some students may be capable in high schools, but the pressure of higher education is tough even for talented ones. That explains why it is only suitable for a limited people, and opening up for everyone will be fatal for institutions, since they need to somehow lower the materials so that it is practical for everyone.
Secondly, university should only accept good students because it gives better human resources for sophisticated purposes. Some people argue that this may lead to 'social division', when someone with high education refuses to do the called 'low jobs', but actually it gives no harm to the whole community. Those standard jobs will always be available for everyone, while complex ones should be only handled by the best people, who start their career from the best institutions. I think limiting the number of people who can be admitted by universities is a good choice since it will reward the motivation of students and constantly keep them in the difficult level of learning, which makes them do the best to improve themselves. Ultimately, this improves the overall quality of education and gives the best people to serve in the most necessary needs of the society.
To sum thing up, I agree that everyone should have a compulsory education level up to high school, but the above divisions should be only the realm of the best students. This will improve the quality of both universities and students, thus placing people in positions which suit them most. | it should be better to leave this type of type of training for a certain group of good, knowledgeable learners
everyone should have a compulsory education level up to high school, but the above divisions should be only the realm of the best students
This will improve the quality of both universities and students, thus placing people in positions which suit them most
focusing only on talented students is a better option
it helps academic institutions maintain their high education quality
Unlike middle school or high school, university and college require far a lot of ability and skills to keep up with an enormous amount of complex knowledge
some students may be capable in high schools, but the pressure of higher education is tough even for talented ones
That explains why it is only suitable for a limited people, and opening up for everyone will be fatal for institutions
they need to somehow lower the materials so that it is practical for everyone
university should only accept good students
it gives better human resources for sophisticated purposes
this may lead to 'social division', when someone with high education refuses to do the called 'low jobs'
it gives no harm to the whole community
Those standard jobs will always be available for everyone, while complex ones should be only handled by the best people, who start their career from the best institutions
limiting the number of people who can be admitted by universities is a good choice
it will reward the motivation of students and constantly keep them in the difficult level of learning, which makes them do the best to improve themselves
this improves the overall quality of education and gives the best people to serve in the most necessary needs of the society |
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 causality is wrong.
Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms.
Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone
Candidate 1: "Legalization leaves ‘risk’ in the hands of the worker.
Legalising sex as work, puts the burden of risk to the sex workers themselves; and having its basis from European law models raises questions over applicability across Africa. Although, in theory, a legal framework will enhance a duty of rights and a voice for workers, it also becomes the individual who need to be aware of rights, safe practices, and security risks. Legalisation means individuals become responsible. However, when considering how youths are lured into cities, and workers enter the profession following promised opportunities, is that ‘just’? Before legalising the profession individuals need to be granted choices to not engage in such practices. The family relations forcing migration and prostitution need evaluation. How much power can national legislation have when traditional, local, and family power relations limit choices to enter sex work? Will state actors follow laws when sex work remains culturally unacceptable? Further, legalization needs to be met with opportunities to exit the industry."
Candidate 2: "The inclusion of youths and children misses out a crucial component - poverty. Busza (2006) identifies three forms of ‘sexual exchange’: sex work, transactional sex, and survival sex. Children are often recruited into the sex trade as a result of poverty, desires for consumption, and a lack of social support.
The ”sugar daddy” phenomenon across Africa is a case in point. Older men are able to entice young women, and children, through false promises and material products [1] .
Without providing key necessities, and alternatives to meet needs, practices will be driven further underground and youngsters placed at greater risk.
[1] For examples see: IRIN, 2013a; 2013b."
Candidate 3: "Legalising sex work means legalising the trading of bodies as a commodity. The practice is disempowering and undermining human rights, not vice-versa. It remains immoral that the state should grant such transactions and introduce prostitution as a career path. By legalising sex work to control HIV, the state becomes an active agent in illegitimate practices. Further, the state makes money while no gains are made for workers. Who really benefits from legalisation?"
Candidate 4: "The reality of a causal relation between legalising sex work and decriminalisation remains questionable. Accepting sex work within the legal framework does not ensure the practice is de-stigmatised or becomes regulated. Such contradictions indicate the depth of social stigmatisation towards sex work.
Taking the case of Senegal, where prostitution has been legalised, police abuse continues and sex workers actively choose to work in unregulated environments. In Senegal’s booming sex trade industry, prostitutes are required to register with the police and granted a identity card confirming health requirements have been met. However, their identification places sex workers open to discrimination by the police and social stigma [1] . Further, the legalisation of the industry in Senegal has attracted immigrants and refugees to work within the industry. They lack citizenship rights; therefore legal protection is limited and abused. Clandestine sex work remains prevalent. Sex workers represent around 18% of HIV prevalence, particularly higher amongst women (Aids Alliance, 2013).
Sex workers rights will only emerge once sex work is de-stigmatised, the act of selling sex is no longer taboo, and corrupt laws changed to provide sex workers with respect and protection beyond the law. The stigma of sex work is the basis of illegality and criminalisation.
[1] Senegal has a predominantly muslim population."
Candidate 5: "Legalising ensures health care and safe sex.
Legalising sex work will enable regulation. Responsive laws can promote safe sex practices and enable access to health services [1] .
Firstly, sex workers fear asking for health assistance, and treatment in public services, due to the illegal and criminalised nature of sex work. WHO (2011) predicted 1 in 3 sex workers received adequate HIV prevention; and less are able to access additional health services. Access is limited due to the criminalised status, but also cost of treatment and transport, inconvenient opening hours, and humiliation [2] . Secondly, the illegal nature of sex work has been attached to safe-practice tools. In Namibia, where prostitution remains commonly practiced but illegal, the criminalisation of accessing condoms enhances vulnerabilities. Following stop and searches by the police 50% of sex workers reported their condoms were destroyed (OSF, 2012). Within the 50%, 75% subsequently had unprotected sex. Being defined as illegal puts workers at greater risk.
Through legalisation sex workers can access tests and openly seek treatment, care and support.
[1] ICASA, 2013, has argued national responses need to enable inclusive, and universal, access to health care treatment to combat HIV/AIDS.
[2] See further readings: Mtewwa et al, 2013."
Candidate 6: "Legalising sex work means control and regulation can be imposed on all aspects of the industry. Legalization ensures the sex workers are recognised as citizens, and workers, with rights. It does not preclude similar action relating to the demand aspect."
Candidate 7: "The market framework: sex work is an industry.
Sex work needs to be understood as a market-based industry. Sex workers are influenced by supply and demand [1] . It needs to be questioned both who, what, and why sex workers are forced into sexual exchanges and alternatively, why demand is found.
The legalisation of sex work focuses on the supply-side - potentially ensuring safer, and just, practices for sex workers. However, demand is not resolved. First, legalization does not ensure customers are tested for HIV/AIDS and take precautions. Legalisation may not change behaviour or attitudes. Second, legalization may increase demand through sex tourism, commercial trafficking or exploitation. What drives the sex industry? Legalisation will result in expanding the sex industry, as seen in the 25% increase in the Netherlands following legalisation (Daley, 2001). In Uganda, condom use declines with more regular customers (Morris et al, 2009).
We need to ask what should be included within a legal framework - supply, demand; brothels, customers, or sex workers?
[1] The ‘Swedish model’ rolled out in Europe is based on tackling demand. The legal reforms have been set to target the demand for prostitution through its criminalisation."
Candidate 8: "Gender equality.
Engaging in sex work is a choice; a reflection of individual agency, whereby control is granted over their own body. One has the right to choose how they use their body; therefore legalising sex work legitimising a woman’s, or man’s, right over their body and sexuality."
Candidate 9: "By legalising sex work the duty, and ethics, of care are granted to national bodies. The state is able to intervene and act when the rights of sex workers are identified as being breached. The individual self becomes empowered, and integrated into, a legal framework."
Candidate 10: "Gender inequality, hierarchies and violence, will become legalised [1] . Across Africa, women account for a higher proportion of the population living with HIV - gender inequalities are a key driver of the epidemic. For example, patriarchal structures encourage polygamy in marriage; and women’s roles in the reproductive sphere forces them into the caregiver role when someone in the household gets HIV/AIDS.
The legalisation of sex work will ensure the epidemic continues to ‘feminise’. Women will become commodified, meeting male demands and desires, within a unequal gender society.
[1] Further readings on the debate of gender and sex work see: Richter, 2012."
Candidate 11: "Introducing new ‘good’ laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics.
First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives [1] . Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures.
[1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR’s ‘anti-prostitution pledge’, on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013)."
Candidate 12: "Monitoring who enters the sex trade.
By including sex workers under a legal framework regulatory rules can be imposed on who enters the profession, such as is found in Senegal. The introduction of Senegal’s Identity Card means frequent health checks are required upon registration to be a prostitute. Additionally, the use of children and youths within the sex industry can be controlled.
Global estimations of HIV/AIDS show young people are at highest risk. The UNDP (2013) called for a legal framework able to ensure the protection of children and youths. Regulation and monitoring is the only way to do so."
Candidate 13: "Sex work is legitimate work.
Sex work is employment, and therefore requires legal protection. It remains the government responsibility to provide security for their productive workforce and enable them to organise, and unionise. Sex work empowers women and men by providing a means of income, independence and control over sexual practices, and flexible employment. A legal framework will enable sex workers to be able to unionise. Unions remain a source of power in politics.
Recognising sex work as legitimate work enables positive intervention. Firstly, taxes can be collected by the state; and social security schemes established. Pensions can be set up and a safety-net for if workers become ill and or infected provided. Sex workers will be recognised as citizens, contributing to national wealth. Secondly, labour laws - such as minimal wages, hours, and safety, can be implemented. Labour laws are a means of regulating conditions of employment and workplaces preventing exploitation [1] .
[1] ILO (2013) defines ‘decent work’ as productive work; work whereby rights are guaranteed and social protection provided; and work that promotes social organisations."
Candidate 14: "Decriminalising increses sex workers’ rights.
Sex workers remain stigmatised across Africa. Legalising sex work enables the practice to be decriminalised, and rights provided.
Being a sex worker where it is illegal creates additional risks and vulnerabilities. Reports from South Africa show that criminalizing sex workers makes them more likely to be victims of inhuman police action [1] . Sex workers are raped, abused, and harassed. The risk of unsafe sex is therefore practiced outside of their occupation as no legal rights are provided. Legalising, and subsequently decriminalising, sex work will first, tackle corrupt police soliciting sex. Secondly, a new rights framework is provided. Sex workers are able to fight exploitation and claim rights for protection by prosecuting perpetrators if raped or abused.
Sex work will continue either way - but legalising it means legal safety, protection, and negotiation, is provided.
[1] The legalisation of sex work has been introduced by the ANC Women's League (ANCWL) in South Africa. See further readings: BBC, 2012; Daily News, 2013)"
Candidate 15: "Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013)."
| Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).
|
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: Mark Walport : Yes. Inevitably.
Proposition: Mark Walport is or isn't frustrated | Agreeing |
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
We thank the authors for this very interesting study.
We have some comments and suggestions which we think will enhance the manuscript.
1.
The primary outcome measure is the citation counts from publications associated with the successful application.
Publications were produced from 1 to 8 years after the peer review date (average 4.3 years).
This does not appear to take account of varying time since the projects were funded (i.e. 7 year gap between projects that were funded from 1999 to 2006).
Thus, older studies would have had more time for publications to be produced and cited.
We therefore suggest a more meaningful outcome measure would be either the number of citations per year per study, or the total number of citations in, say, the 5 years following the final project report, or some other standardised project milestone.
Adding the review year to the model does not seem to adequately control for this factor (though qualified statistical advice is needed to clarify this).
We think this is the issue that likely affects the interpretation of the results the most in our critique.
2.
The number of citations was standardised by academic field – i.e. molecular biology.
Was there any variation in study designs within this field that might also change the expected number of citations (e.g. systematic reviews may attract more citations than primary experimental studies in some fields)?
It would be useful for context if there could be a table with some basic aggregate details of the funded studies, such as types of study design, molecular biological application, study sample characteristics, duration of study etc.
This would help to put the results into context.
3.
The impact of a piece of research on which referees could not agree might be either lower or higher than those on which they could.
So, it would be useful to plot the standard deviation of the citations against the standard deviation of the peer review score.
4.
As well as using multiple imputation to correct for missing data, a sensitivity analysis in which cases with missing data are omitted would be useful.
5.
Some measure of the model fit would be useful, eg.
adjusted R squared
6.
There was a wide variation in the number of reviewers per article from 2 to 18.
Was this due to differences in the kind of research, amount of funding requested or some other perceived risk on behalf of the funder?
Could this artificially influence the standard deviation of the score, confounding any association with citations?
7.
Fractional polynomial model results are only presented for the best fitting model with the smallest deviance.
This is acceptable in principle, but it would be useful for the authors to comment on whether there was any variation in the results according to the other fractional polynomial transformations (if available).
This will provide confidence in the robustness of the findings.
8.
Reference is made in the first paragraph to a “recent systematic review” by Guthrie et al (2018 1 ) (and also in the third paragraph).
We note that this publication doesn’t refer to itself as being a systematic review, and indeed, it is an update of a 2009 review which describes itself as a non-systematic review.
We would suggest using the tern “non-systematic review”, or just “literature review”.
9.
Thank you for citing our own recent systematic review on peer review of grants in health.
You mention that the review included eight studies and called for further research in this area, which is correct.
However, the review focused specifically on studies aiming to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review.
These were drawn from a wider set of 83 studies on peer review which we systematically mapped.
In the map there were some studies which focused on assessing the impact of funded research, eg.
In terms of bibliometrics.
Thus, there is a body of evidence on this topic, though we didn't systematically review it in detail.
We are happy to provide you with a list of these studies.
10.
The sentence on page 3 beginning “A recent systematic review found “suggestive” evidence that funding peer review can have an anti-innovation bias 2 and that innovation and risk may not often be sufficiently addressed in review feedback 7 ” needs re-wording as not only is the Guthrie et al paper a non-systematic review, but the second reference cited in that sentence by Gallo et al is a survey (i.e. not a review at all).
The way the sentence is phrased implies that it is a systematic review.
11.
Suggest amending the sentence on page 3 “Many studies using large sample sizes found either no association or only a weak association between the mean score and the VOLUME of citations of subsequent publications” | Structure
Strength
Other
Structure
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Other
Todo
Weakness
Weakness
Structure
Recap
Todo
Todo
Other
Structure
Other
Todo
Structure
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Recap
Todo
Todo
Structure
Recap
Todo
Other
Structure
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Structure
Other
Recap
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Structure
Todo
Weakness
Structure
Todo |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: useful | If you have a good reason to do it , such as needing to clone something or another , git can help with this by automating some tasks which might otherwise require human intervention - eg : ` git pull ` This will create a new branch `` master '' where all changes from `` master '' to `` test '' will live , but only when someone else does n't commit anything since `` master '' has been cloned . |
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
Congratulations to the authors.
Despite sporotrichosis remains a neglected disease in terms of research interest, funding and medical attention, to which the authors have made significant contributions.
However, this study has several major observations:
Methods.
The literature search is limited to two databases.
Fig. 1.
Present a flow, and follow the guidelines of a scoping review.
MedLine / Pubmed and Abstracts of Scientific Conference should be reviewed.
There are several published studies on sporotrichosis in journals indexed in SCIELO, LiLACS, etc.
These papers have not been included in the study.
I don’t think that this article contains enough robust data to evidence the implications for practice.
The strategy and organization of the information about Implications for practice is not appropriate.
A set of words related to tentative language is biased.
Furthermore, only the abstracts have been reviewed.
To evaluate the implications in practice, it is necessary to organize the different types of published studies: case series, observational study, clinical trials and systematic review, diagnostic test, etc.
Furthermore, studies not related to the clinical practice of sporotrichosis should be excluded.
Results:
Paragraph 1.
I suggest include in Results section include the statistical test.
Scientific production by hyperendemic areas of sporotrichosis should be presented.
Table 3.
I suggest to make a comparison between Brazil, USA, Mexico, China, or hyperendymic areas of sporotrichosis.
The authors should include the different types of published articles: review, original, short communication, case reports, clinical trial, systematic, review, correspondece, Research Letters, etc.
Research trends.
It would be interesting to know how these trends vary between Latin America.
Europe and Asia.
Implications for practice
I suggest organizing the published studies: case series, observational study, clinical trials and systematic review, diagnostic test, etc.
Although there are very few clinical trials and systematic reviews on sporotrichosis, this evidence should be presented in tables.
Furthermore, studies not related to the clinical practice of sporotrichosis should be excluded.
Finally, sporotrichosis is not limited to dermatology.
Discussion
In the “Discussion” section I would have wished to see more information on implicance practic .
Limitations should be described and discussed such as: the number of databases included in the study, the studies were not classified, to differentiate the type of scientific evidence for clinical practice, etc. | Structure
Other
Strength
Structure
Structure
Weakness
Structure
Todo
Todo
Other
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Todo
Structure
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Other
Structure
Todo
Todo |
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. | Obama administration officials say they plan to reject Congressional efforts to limit the president's options on Guantanamo, setting the stage for a confrontation between the president and the new Congress on an issue that has been politically divisive since Inauguration Day.¶ The Guantanamo provisions, which include limits on where and how prisoners can be tried, were attached to a spending bill for military pay and benefits approved by Congress late last year. Some Administration officials are recommending that President Obama sign the spending bill and then issue a “signing statement” challenging at least some of the Guantanamo provisions as intrusions on his constitutional authority. Others have recommended that he express opposition to the Guantanamo sections without addressing their constitutionality.¶ The statement, officials said, would likely be released along with a new executive order that outlined review procedures for some -- but not all -- of the 174 Guantanamo prisoners still held without charge or trial.¶ Obama has used signing statements in the past, but this one would carry political significance as the first test of his relationship with a Congress in which the House is firmly in Republican control.¶ Officials said the White House is still weighing how to calibrate the signing statement. A statement rejecting all of the bill's Guantanamo provisions would almost certainly be viewed as provocative by Congressional Republicans and some Democrats. But administration officials view the provisions as clear encroachments on the president's right to prosecutorial discretion and some are pushing for their blanket repudiation.¶ The reliance on detention orders and a signing statement -- tools used repeatedly by former President Bush, who built Guantanamo nearly a decade ago -- is seen by Obama's advisers as among the few options left for an administration that has watched the steady erosion of its first White House pledge nearly two years ago: to close the prison.¶ "There is obviously an irony here," said one Obama administration official, "but if we resort to this, it is to close Guantanamo, not keep it open."¶ While the signing statement and the executive order would leave some room for Obama, they would do little to bring his policy goals to fruition. Over the last two years, Congress and the administration, working separately and in conflict, have woven together a complicated set of categories, policies and restrictions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to close Guantanamo.¶ What the White House once saw as bipartisan support for shuttering the prison soon became a bipartisan effort to thwart the administration's plans.¶ The spending measure effectively bars the president from prosecuting any detainees in federal court or conducting military commission trials on U.S. soil. The bill makes it increasingly difficult to transfer detainees to foreign countries, even if the administration deems them safe to release. And it complicates the review process Obama plans in the executive order for nearly 50 detainees the administration has designated as too dangerous to free.¶ A small circle of policymakers and lawyers from the White House, the Justice Department and State Department spent the closing hours of 2010 considering drafts for a statement. A number of administration officials who discussed the internal deliberations declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on this subject.¶ They said the statement could amount to a presidential intent to disregard some, but not all, of the provisions relating to Guantanamo detainees. Under consideration are claims that the provisions amount to "undue infringement" on the president's authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, or that they are viewed by the White House as an "unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion," on that power.¶ Several advisers were pushing for a broader statement that would also take issue with provisions related to detainee transfers. Obama has twice issued signing statements claiming that legislative provisions interfered with his constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations and could do so again. But there is some concern that the White House is on less firm ground in that area. The bill, while making future transfers difficult, does not ban them outright.¶ "There is an honest debate right now, centered primarily inside the White House Counsel's office, and among a number of top staff," said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The question is: Can we work with some of this stuff and, if not, how sharply do we make that point."¶ The president could veto the spending bill. But officials said the White House will not block legislation on military pay and benefits, especially after the military's support for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," legislation in December. Spokesmen at the White House and the National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.¶ The White House has, until now, balked at confrontation even as it watched its policy options dwindle. Not one administration official who spoke about the internal deliberations could say for sure whether the White House, in moving to protect the right to prosecute detainees in federal court, would in fact use it.¶ "All presidents want to preserve maneuverability and authority, that is natural," said Elisa Massimino, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights First. "But President Obama has had the authority to move prisoners to the United States, he's done the background work to identify people to bring to justice and he's squandered the opportunities to exercise that authority. It is striking to now see a fiercer desire to preserve authority than to use it," she said. | administration officials say they plan to reject Congressional efforts to limit the president's options on Guantanamo setting the stage for a confrontation between the president and Congress on an issue that has been politically divisive since Inauguration provisions, which limit where and how prisoners can be tried administration officials view the provisions as clear encroachments on the president's right to prosecutorial discretion All presidents want to preserve maneuverability and authority said Massimino, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights First. " It is striking to now see a fiercer desire to preserve authority than to use it," |
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: Out of town centres damage local communities' identities
Out of town centres damage local communities' identities. In addition to the damage they do to local trade and civic identification, out of town centres are often far enough out of town that they are not clearly regarded as forming part of the local community. Frequently they lie outside the jurisdiction of the urban council, and so contribute nothing to the local area in taxes. One proposal has suggested using additional taxes on out-of-town retailers to ensure that British high streets can be either maintained or revived1. Furthermore, as out of town centres start to attract residential building nearby, this can "hollow out" the community identity and economic viability of the original town.
1 Travel Weekly. (2011, May 19). Out-of-town retailers 'must fund town centre revival'. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Travel Weekly:
Candidate 1: "Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment
Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment. They encourage pollution because they are further from town centres than traditional retail units and encourage the use of cars for fairly short, environmentally harmful journeys. They also frequently involve the destruction of large areas of countryside, not only to accommodate the retail development itself, but also the parking, access roads and secondary development that usually follows. This is made worse by the standard one or two story design of modern malls, which results in wasteful sprawl. Efficient urban development, by contrast, tends to go upwards (or downwards) in multi-storey buildings, often with parking below and apartments above retail space. Friends of the Earth, an environmental lobby, has recently pushed a ban in Northern Ireland on all out-of-town shopping centres, arguing they 'increase consumption and waste and dramatically increase cars on the road'1
1 Friends of the Earth. (2011, June 10). No more out of town shopping centres. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland:"
Candidate 2: "Out of town centres distort urban growth patterns. Because they are not organic growth, out of town centres often warp local infrastructure provision. So, while (for example) they may have good access roads built, there will be fewer amenities built at the same time, and subsequent residential development which follows in the path often grows too quickly to incorporate the sort of planned town infrastructure which developed in more traditional, carefully planned town centre environments. Because out of town centres often do not clearly serve a particular residential area, they distort growth as it means that, rather than responding to a residential area's needs, the centre is built and attracts residential development around it for convenience, regardless of whether this is the most appropriate planning approach for local communities."
Candidate 3: "Out of town malls damage town centres
Out of town malls damage town centres. Because the out of town developments are remote from the town centre, shoppers go there without passing the urban shops, which eliminates the opportunistic purchases which form a large part of many small shops' custom. They also damage the sense of community spirit. Out of town centres are typically managed by national firms and house chain shops, whereas the town centre will normally have a larger proportion of locally owned and run shops. Not only does this encourage a net outflow of money from the local community, it also reduces local involvement in the town centre, which can have a negative knock-on effect on civic pride and municipal participation. In Douglas, Arizona shops in the town centre have been forced to close due to a loss in sales to out-of-town centres. According to a 2010 report, over 23% of all spending on groceries was spent outside of the town itself, causing at least one major store in-town to fold and put all its employees out of work1. As such, out of town centres also remove a sense of local diversity. Because out of town centres are typically nationally run from outside the community, they all look alike and are less sensitive to local shoppers' needs. They are more likely to focus on homogenous product and service offerings across their sites.
1 Blaskey, L. (2011, July 13). Safeway to close. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Douglas Dispatch:"
Candidate 4: "Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres."
Candidate 5: "Out of town shopping malls offer a better shopping experience
Out of town malls offer a better shopping experience. It is easier for shoppers to visit an out of town retail development than an urban or town centre shopping area. Typically, out of town malls offer access roads which are not crowded and plenty of "free" car parking. This is welcomed by shoppers and is in contrast to many city centre or high street shopping areas. It is also convenient for shoppers to be able to make their purchases under one roof. In an out of town shopping centre, shoppers are typically able to complete their purchases in one covered mall, and perhaps even in one giant store. This is less time-consuming and less stressful than the more traditional experience of needing to visit multiple different shops. In addition, the interiors of shopping centres are actively managed and so are typically clean, relatively safe and may offer their own entertainment (e.g. skating rinks, cinemas, live music). This is typically less true of more traditional shopping areas, where for example at night poor lighting may be off-putting to some shoppers. As retail outlets in town continue to close, Britain reports growing demand for out-of-town shopping vacancies1.
1 Kollewe, J. (2011, June 14). High street chains snap up spaces in out-of-town shopping parks. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Guardian:"
Candidate 6: "t of town malls do not serve shopper interests well. It is time-consuming for shoppers to visit out of town centres because of their distance from population centres and the tendency for their access roads quickly to become clogged with traffic. This can eradicate any time saving from the convenience of having shops or retail categories clustered in a single geographical location. They also marginalise parts of society. For example, people without access to cars are effectively excluded from actively using them. This especially affects some social groups, e.g. the poor and the elderly. Ultimately, if out of town malls reduce their town centre shopping options, they will have less not more shopping choice."
Candidate 7: "Malls promote competition and serve consumers well
Hypermarkets and malls promote competition and so serve consumers well. Because of their huge purchasing power and economies of scale, large retail chains with huge outlets such as Wal-Mart, Tescos and Carrefour can offer products much more cheaply than smaller high-street rivals. The convenience and greater enjoyment offered by out of town malls can also push urban shopping centres into improving their own provision for consumers. This can be seen through improvements in the urban environment, better policing, cheaper parking and more ease of access, and the provision of entertainment and special events (e.g. farmers markets, foreign markets and street festivals) to draw shoppers in from a wider area. The public have voted with their feet, in 2003 48% of everything bought in Britain was bought in out of town stores1.
1 Watkins, M. (2003, June 27). The phenomenon of out of town retailing in the UK. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from AC Nielsen:"
Candidate 8: "Out of town centres bring development in their wake.
Out of town centres bring development in their wake. As out of town centres are often built on aesthetically unappealing "brownfield" sites, the injection of large investment by a retailer is a vote of confidence in the area and this has a knock-on effect in the local economy. The out of town centre acts as a magnet for further positive development locally. Other amenities and housing will typically start to congregate near the shop and the centre creates a boom for the local economy. This is not only true in the initial construction stages, it will also apply once it is up and running, as retail staff will typically be recruited fairly locally. In Edinburgh, the multi-million development of the out-of-town shopping centre in Livingston is believed to have created more than 1500 jobs alone1.
1 Edwards, G. (2005, July 28)."
Candidate 9: "Out of town retail developments actually reduce effective competition because smaller urban outlets are not able to compete with them on price. In the United States for example, Wal-Mart pays workers the bare minimum and imports goods produced for a lot cheaper overseas1. Local stores cannot compete. After a while the urban shopping centre will become "hollowed out", with most stores shutting and only a few niche retailers or stores catering to poorer and less mobile social groups remaining. Once this competition is removed, the out of town stores can put up their own prices, especially as malls and other out of town retail centres are actively planned to reduce direct competition within particular retail sectors (e.g. only one large food retailer, only one Do-It-Yourself store, only, only a few shoe shops, etc.).
1 Freeman, R. (2003, November 21). Wal-Mart collapses U.S. cities and towns. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Executive Intelligence Review:"
Candidate 10: "Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together."
Candidate 11: "Out of town shopping centres represent a sensible, efficient land use. Large-scale shopping does not sit well with residential behaviour. For example, early morning deliveries and late-night shopping can create a lot of noise. In a traditional environment where shops are immediately beside residential areas, this is a nuisance to local residents; this is not the case in out of town sites. Only out of town locations offer the retail industry the space it needs to function. To run an efficient modern shop, large amounts of space with particular planning needs often have to be used. This is often incompatible with densely populated, built-up areas where retail units are largely unable to be altered significantly to meet modern needs."
| Out of town shopping centres do not damage local communities, they strengthen them. Shopping is easier, more convenient and more accessible than before, leaving more time for community activities. Furthermore, they act as hubs for community cohesion, teenagers can use the entertainment facilities, parents can shop. Any residential opportunities that arise only 'hollow' the community out for a short period of time, the influx of investment in the area (propelled by the shopping centre's presence) will ensure that the town and the shopping centre gradually close back together.
|
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: Creationists recognise it and accept it as it goes in nicely with the creationary model.
Response: Not many creationists accept it. Your later comment that it was a creationist who first proposed natural selection is in error. Natural selection was one of Darwin's theories, also formulated independently by Alfred Russel Wallace.\n | -2.33333 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "environmental damage is inevitable", target argumentative component: "tourism should not be alledged to be notorous for its detriment to the ecological diversity" | attack |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | To extend the title slightly, I believe that a healthy empire should only defend its own borders and never send out any proactive attacks against other nations. Unless there's a genuine quorum among the nations of the world to attack one specific belligerent state. And in an unequal world such as ours at this time where some nations are considered 3rd world due to poverty or military oppression developed nations should spread their culture of social security and personal freedom via media. Call it propaganda if you will, as long as it's spread from a nation willing to sacrifice some security of its citizens in order to only spread these views and ideas through non violent means then I'm fine with using the somewhat stained word propaganda. And under that umbrella of media propaganda would be things like free markets in order to develop infrastructure, information technology and of course good old culture in the form of music and movies. Also things like allowing for non profits or charity organisations to operate abroad, or sending engineers and doctors who volunteer to help, things that go on today already. The view is that if a successful empire were to employ these means of spreading their philosophy and way of life, while simultaneously setting an example by avoiding proactive conflict with the world around them, then people in other countries would themselves see that they could strive for something better and eventually that internal friction would turn into revolution. One obvious flaw with this is as I've mentioned that any attack against this supposed empire would most likely meet with unprepared defences. I understand that this might seem a pipe dream but I'm not asking for this view to be proven impossible but rather for you to change my view on why this shouldn't be a goal to strive towards. | I believe an empire should only invest in reactive defence of its own borders, and spread its philosophy through diplomacy and propaganda. |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
This paper describes the PathLinker Cytoscape app, including the mathematical algorithms and a comparison to similarly-focused Cytoscape apps.
It is well written and address the important problem of deducing relationships that can advance biology.
It is very economical in its explanation of the app/algorithm, its uses and its relationship to other apps, and in several places needs more explanation.
Explanations tend to weigh in favor of expert Cytoscape users, though this app would be of interest to less expert users, too, particularly those trying to relate PathLinker to biological investigation.
The paper would benefit from better enabling the reader to follow a use case in Cytoscape using actual data and actual app settings.
- In Methods | Operation, please explain how to acquire and run PathLinker.
- In "Allow sources and targets in paths" and "Targets are identical to sources", please explain the biological implications of these settings ...
it's difficult to jump from the graph implications to the biological implications.
- In "Algorithm", why is the default chosen, and what are the biological ramifications of choosing a higher or lower k ?
- The output in Figure 2B seems to be a standalone window.
How can the user capture the results?
It's unclear how the user should be using this report in investigating relationships.
- In "Edge penalty", please explain when a edge penalty would be used in a network and what its biological implication would be.
- In "Input datasets and pre-processing", I attempted to download the ToxCost data and could not.
The site requires a credential and does not give instructions regarding how to get the credential.
Without this data, the user is hard pressed to reproduce these results and then evolve his/her own questions.
The web site apparently identifies this data as freely available.
Can it be included as supplementary material (as a Cytoscape session file?) to assist the user in following this paper?
- In "Input datasets and pre-processing", I tracked down the referenced original PathLinker paper.
It took a while to determine which network was being used.
I downloaded it and imported it into Cytoscape.
During the import, there were a number of options available, and it was unclear which options should be chosen.
Can this network be included as supplementary material (as a Cytoscape session file?) to assist the user in following this paper?
- In "Running PathLinker", can you explain the biological ramifications behind the k =50 and edge penalty settings?
- In "Further Analysis", can you explain which Cytoscape tool or feature you used to spread the nodes apart?
I'm thinking of the biological user that's trying to follow the paper.
- In "Functional Enrichment", can you specify which ClueGO settings you used?
This is a very valuable step, and it's hard for the user to follow without giving settings.
- In "Running Time", how many CPU cores and how much RAM were on the test machine?
- In the "Comparison to related Cytoscape Apps", the discussion focuses on differences in graph analysis approaches, and assumes the reader can appreciate the reasons why PathLinker gives better results.
The discussion could use a little more justification, and also some grounding in the biological consequences of these differences.
- In the Introduction, the claim "any human signaling pathway" is overbroad.
I suggest claiming "human signaling pathways". | Structure
Recap
Strength
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Other
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Other
Other
Other
Todo
Other
Weakness
Other
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Todo
Other
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Recap
Todo
Weakness
Todo |
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? | Without capital punishment we would have more problems with over-crowding in prisons. | 0.920627262 |
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: Climate change
Quote: This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?
Response: Because internal variability from the likes of ENSO, which can cause short term swings of a full degree C, easily swamp the smaller increase we'd expect from CO2 forcing. Easy.\n | 14.285700000000002 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Healthcare
Quote: What makes you think doctors are paid badly in a national healthcare system? GP salaries in the UK average GBP100 000, that's US$200 000, around 4 times the median income in this country. Medical training is hugely competitive, requiring higher grades than anything except Veterinary Science. Transplant surgery here is limited by a shortage of donors, not doctors or funding.
Response: I don\'t think I said they\'d be paid badly.\n...and you say "this country" as if you\'re here in the USA. Are you in the UK or not?\nI noticed you did not provide a link to your claim of doctors pay in the UK....so I looked it up. It is hard to conceive of an average being higher than any one of the samples and the highest paid in the UK appear to be 20 year veterans making GBP79,500 ..... updated 4/1/2008 (That\'s today and I doubt it\'s an April Fool joke.)\nhttp://www.payscale.com/research/Uk/...Doctors/Salary\nDo you have another source that justifies your exageration?emoticonXRolleyes \nI do notice in the third bar chart down the page that UK Physicians IN PRIVATE PRACTICE make GBP100,000. It appears that the Government Doctors make a lot less (GBP42,500 for state and local...GBP54,000 for federal.)\nWhere is your back-up? | -3.0 |
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: "Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."
Response: Creationists intentionally misrepresent what was found. It was not blood, not whole proteins. \n | 0.0 |
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: Evolution
Quote: You obviously got your opinions second hand. Read the sequel to Mein Kampf and you will never be able to say Hitler was not absolutely driven by Darwinism. At least not honestly.
Response: So what? Some of the greatest crimes in history have been led by people of faith. Take the Crusades for one, the religious knights killed every last man, women, and child in Jerusalem. It doesn't discredit Christianity does it? | 0.0 |
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: Abortion
Quote: AMD4EVER, thank you for your reply. Does your nickname suggest you don't like Intel? Just wondering.
Response: It used to mean that, now it is just a screen name. I was a big fan of AMD back when I was invested in them. They are still a decent company but they can't seem to keep up with Intel.\nI like your screen name as well. I\xe2\x80\x99m guessing you got the idea from Braveheart which is my favorite movie of all time!\n | 3.5 |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "some people spend a lot of time watching television", argumentative component 2: "Time with the family is gold, some people have to realize that and take quality of time to talk to them" | Yes |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | I don't believe that at will government employees being furloughed should receive retroactive back pay for the days they didn't work during the shutdown. I've had employers cut or cancel hours, and I was never compensated afterwards for hours that I had planned to work. Why would I be paid for a job that I didn't do? I believe that employees should be responsible for judging the stability of their employers and should plan accordingly. Here are the main reasons why I hold this point of view If you didn't work the hours, you shouldn't be paid for them. Government employees should have the same expectations of their employer as they would of a private employer. If a private employer decides to start cutting your hours, or told you to stay home, it is unreasonable to expect retroactive payment for the hours that you didn't work. Losing a job or having your hours cut sucks for anyone, whether they are a public or private employee. If someone who worked at a McDonalds or Target had their hours cut or eliminated, their personal finances are still their own responsibility. I reject the notion that the furloughs are somehow unfair to people who have mortgage payments, bills, families, ect. If you see that your employer is unstable, you should start lining up jobs and planning ahead. The responsibility to make career decisions lies with the employee. Exclusions I feel that furloughed employees who are employed via contract should receive retroactive pay because the government should be expected to uphold the responsibilities for contracts it enters into. Questions Are there any laws rules that prevent furloughed employees from seeking new jobs elsewhere? Are furloughed employees able to file for unemployment while they look for new jobs? If not, they probably should be allowed to imo. EDIT Thanks to those of you who kept the discussion civil, as it was certainly productive. My view has been changed I wholeheartedly support retroactive back pay for furloughed government employees for the following reasons The government pays less than private sector but draws in talented employees with increased job security. Retroactive back pay in the event of a shutdown makes the government a more desirable employer. The government has set a reasonable expectation that furloughed workers will receive retroactive back pay by providing it in the past, and promising to provide it in the future. Thank you for offering alternative POVs on this issue it really helped change my opinion. | I don't believe that furloughed government employees should be paid for the days they didn't work. |
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: The propaganda is obvious. The guidebook encourages docents to proclaim their evolutionary faith with boldness and confidence:\n\xe2\x80\x9cBe polite but firm.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\xe2\x80\x9cPractice. Your credibility is higher, and you\xe2\x80\x99ll be more comfortable, when you sound like you know what you\xe2\x80\x99re talking about. Rehearse answers to the most frequently asked questions \xe2\x80\xa6 .\xe2\x80\x9d
Response: Why is that propoganda? It's exactly what you do.\n | -0.666667 |
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: Did anyone else expect anything less? These evil fundie christianists can have affairs, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 marriages yet gay people are a threat to marriage by wanting to get married.
Response: You hear that cry...allowing gays to marry will cause the downfall of civilization...but you never hear "how" or "why"? More Chicken Little ####. | 3.0 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: Television is creating a world of lazy people who are becoming unhealthy and uneducated.; Topic: We should abandon television | pro |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
This article provides an update on the ELIXIR-UK role in setting up and providing training resources and tools for both the UK and the broader ELIXIR community.
It provides a good overview of the activities conducted and work achieved since 2014.
The article then also provides an opinion of the funding situation supporting training activities.
Some general comments for improvement:
- The title and abstract indicate that the article will be about ELIXIR-UK and its role as lead of ELIXIR Training, and the work it has accomplished both for the UK and ELIXIR in this training sphere.
The introduction even ends with an excellent summary statement "This report provides an overview of ELIXIR-UK's role in bioinformatics training at the national level."
However, the article scope goes beyond what is indicated by the abstract, and frequently includes funding issues and statements.
While I recognize the need to acknowledge funding sources (can be done under Grant Information section) and to highlight funding shortfalls, I am not convinced that the current organization of repeating funding sources and problems in each section is the ideal organization as it appears to be a complaint rather than a constructive opinion.
Grouping all funding related content into one section (Future Plans section) would greatly improve the read and tone of the article.
In fact, splitting the article in 2 would be ideal - one article would be the report, as described by the abstract; and the second article would be the opinion, and could describe the future directions/funding opinions expressed at the end of the current article and throughout each section.
- Some references are hyperlinks and others are superscripts to the Reference Section.
It would be better to be consistent.
For example, the GOBLET survey on page 3 is a hyperlink to the publication rather than being listed in the reference section.
- Some resources are missing hyperlinks, particularly the ELIXIR-UK website on page 3.
Please add hyperlinks to text missing them.
Another example on page 6, for core Key Performance Indicators identified by the group.
A hyperlink (or further text on the KPIs) to the KPIs in particular would be helpful to groups looking to implement similar metrics in their own training programs.
- What is the model for resources used in the statistics training and metabolomics training?
Is the training software free or commercial software?
How does commercial software align with the mandate of ELIXIR-UK and ELIXIR to train broadly?
- Page 5, Clinical Genomics, are there not other institutes like EBI involved in Clinical Bioinformatics training?
As a North American, EBI comes to mind as an important training centre in the UK, yet is not discussed in this article.
In general, where do these other very visible training groups in the UK fit into ELIXIR-UK?
- Page 7, External Liaisons - keep the same order of relationships as presented in the opening paragraph for this section.
GOBLET section - the establishment and adoption of best practices is fundamental to what or whom?
Bioschemas section - awkward location of the last paragraph.
Consider moving up within the section.
NIH section - North America was also a training expert brought together here.
Please add.
- Page 8, Future Plans - how is it known that the delivered training programs are impactful?
What are the metrics of impactfulness?
Is this related to the KPIs?
If so, please hyperlink or share the KPIs so that other training groups may benefit from these.
Why is the cost-recovery model not sustainable?
The point of a cost-recovery model is to ensure sustainability, otherwise the model is wrong.
- Page 8-9, Future Plans - in general the future plans section focuses more on the UK activities than the ELIXIR wide activities.
Only the ELIXIR-wide TeSS and Coordination activities are described as going forward.
Is the training impact and quality assessment work not continuing, and why not?
Overall, this article describes a significant body of work and expresses important opinions on funding its continuation, but would greatly benefit from a reorganization, and possibly a split into two articles - report and opinion. | Structure
Recap
Strength
Recap
Structure
Recap
Strength
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Weakness
Todo
Recap
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Other
Recap
Recap
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 is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: Enjoy. \nlink
Response: Another question might be, have evolutionists figured out the "mock" gene yet? Mockery was a great ingredient in Christian salvation. Judas mocked Jesus in the garden, the chief priests and scribes laughed him to scorn, Herod mocked him, the servants and the soldiers jeered at him and insulted him, and on the cross all sorts of taunts were thrown at him. \nI don\'t claim to be perfect - mockery could possibly be an effective tool in certain instances, but I may be wrong about that. Is mockery synonymous with evil? The opposite of love? Do atheists do it more than Christians? | -0.8 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: It says right in the Constitution...\n"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...etc. etc.\'\'\nWouldn\'t one gay man marrying another be considered a \'pursuit of happiness\'?\nJust my thoughts.
Response: That is the declaration of independence not the constitution.\nI can go you one better admendment 9 and 10 talk about certain rights retained by the people.\nAmendment IX\nThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. \nAmendment X\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.\nThe conservatives would argue that by offering same sex marriage that their persute of happiness is denied by gay people even existing and that they have to look at us. | 0.0 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The paper is well-written with appropriate title and adequate abstract.
There are, however, several minor comments.
- The authors mention in passing the results of Helwak et al.
Would it be possible to validate the predicted seed regions using the data from the CLASH experiments?
- The results appear to agree with their previous work in Drosophila, with the difference that Ago IP was used in the flies.
This difference is not discussed in sufficient detail here and needs to be further elaborated.
- Have the authors considered a “target” of the tRNA itself, from which a fragment is produced?
After all, there is base complementarity in the stem for both 5’ and 3’ tRFs.
- A recent paper in Science 1 implicated possible tRF matches in promoter regions.
Have the authors considered these targets? | Structure
Strength
Structure
Recap
Todo
Recap
Todo
Todo
Other
Other
Todo |
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 government have to get this right and rethink this traffic light system
Proposition2: doctors as well as journalists have been under attack | No Relation |
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 did achieve a generation of young women who have had the opportunity to learn
Proposition2: just because the situation now is tragic, and because we didn't achieve everything that we wanted to achieve, it doesn't mean to say we achieved nothing | Default Inference |
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? | yes, i ithink that we should end racial profiling because is important for unity of perople | 0.335703126 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Sometimes it is good to learn with a teacher and sometimes on my own
Different people prefer different styles of learning. I think both learning by myself and learning with a teacher could be helpful. Learning with a teacher can prevent one from being confused and increase the rate and speed of learning. Another important point is that for practical subjects you have to have a teacher. On the other hand, sometimes I would rather learning on my own.
A good and experienced teacher can help me learn faster and easier. Sometimes when learning a course by myself which is hard and confusing to understand and has few sources available, I get discouraged after spending a lot of time. In this situation, I'll look for a teacher and request for help from him or her. And then he or she will teach me the course efficiently in a short time and therefore I will learn faster and better and won't get discouraged and confused.
There are some practical subjects that you can only learn them with a teacher or an instructor. For example, if you want to learn driving a car or some jobs like medicine and engineering and some sports like skiing and swimming, you'll have to find a teacher. It's almost impossible and inefficient to learn those things on your own. By the way, if you are going to learn some things by yourself, you may learn and understand them incorrectly! For example, from my own experiences, after I had started learning playing the guitar without a teacher, I got used to wrong habits regarding strumming and tempo, but after finding and learning with a tutor and identifying and eliminating those incorrect habits, I was able to play properly.
There are some things that I prefer to learn them without a teacher because I won't have to spend extra money for a teacher and my time will not be wasted either because of going to classes. In today's world there are many great and useful sources available like books, electronic books, the internet and TV and satellite. I can utilize them as tutorials for many things. For instance, I can learn English or other languages by a lot of helpful books and many online websites.
In sum, sometimes it is good to learn with a teacher and sometimes on my own. In my view, both can help and each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. | both learning by myself and learning with a teacher could be helpful
Learning with a teacher can prevent one from being confused and increase the rate and speed of learning
for practical subjects you have to have a teacher
sometimes I would rather learning on my own
both can help and each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages
it is good to learn with a teacher and sometimes on my own
I will learn faster and better and won't get discouraged and confused
A good and experienced teacher can help me learn faster and easier
Sometimes when learning a course by myself which is hard and confusing to understand and has few sources available, I get discouraged after spending a lot of time
In this situation, I'll look for a teacher and request for help from him or her
And then he or she will teach me the course efficiently in a short time
if you want to learn driving a car or some jobs like medicine and engineering and some sports like skiing and swimming, you'll have to find a teacher
It's almost impossible and inefficient to learn those things on your own
if you are going to learn some things by yourself, you may learn and understand them incorrectly
There are some practical subjects that you can only learn them with a teacher or an instructor
from my own experiences, after I had started learning playing the guitar without a teacher, I got used to wrong habits regarding strumming and tempo, but after finding and learning with a tutor and identifying and eliminating those incorrect habits, I was able to play properly
There are some things that I prefer to learn them without a teacher
I won't have to spend extra money for a teacher and my time will not be wasted either because of going to classes
In today's world there are many great and useful sources available like books, electronic books, the internet and TV and satellite
I can utilize them as tutorials for many things
I can learn English or other languages by a lot of helpful books and many online websites |
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: Your reasoning of the effects of abortion are correct. \nThe liberals who see abortion as a normal, acceptable, right to choose abortion are aborting themselves into extinction. \nReverence, and a love of life is not what motivates Muslims. The power of Islam is. There is nothing to indicate that Muslims "love" life. They\'ll cut your limbs or head off for nearly any reason. They\'ll remove your head with a hacksaw so to take the time for "you" the victim to enjoy the moment and to voice your opinion and video it for your family and countrymen to enjoy.
Response: Do you want anyone to take you seriously? | -2.66667 |
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: Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community.
Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability.
[1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL: http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/22823/middle-east-marginalized-lgbt-youth-find-supportive-communities-online
‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/19/online-identity-authenticity-anonymity
Candidate 1: "Stopping anonymity does not meaningfully prevent bullying. Internet anonymity is not essentially to bullying: it can be done through a nearly infinite number of media. Importantly, it is not even essential to anonymous bullying. For example, it is quite simple to send anonymous text messages: all that is required is access to a phone that the victim does not have the number of. It is similarly easy to simply write notes or letters, and leave them in places where the victim will find them. Anonymous posting on the internet is far from the only place where these kinds of anonymous attacks are possible.
All this policy does is shifts the bullying into areas where they may be more difficult to monitor. Rather than sending messages online that can be, albeit with some difficulty, traced back to the perpetrator, or at least used as some kind of evidence, bullies are likely to return to covert classroom bullying that can be much more difficult to identify."
Candidate 2: "Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently.
Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material.
[1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL: http://www.jewishjournal.com/lifestyle/article/twitter_rife_with_hate_speech_terror_activity
[2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL: http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-admits-it-failed-hate-speech-following-fbrape-twitter-campaign-advertiser-boycott-1282815
[3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL: http://archive.adl.org/internet/internet_law3.asp
[4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily, http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=295..."
Candidate 3: "Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities."
Candidate 4: "Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous.
Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action."
Candidate 5: "Freedom from consequences is not a necessary component of freedom of speech. If someone is free from legal restraints surrounding their ability to speak, they are free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entitle an individual to absolute freedom of consequences of any kind, including social consequences to their speech. While someone should certainly be free to state their opinion, there is no reason why they should be entitled to not be challenged for holding that opinion."
Candidate 6: "Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1
1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-threats-man-arrested-..."
Candidate 7: "Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.
Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.
[1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf"
Candidate 8: "Similar prevention can be achieved through raising internet awareness. In the case of children, parents taking a more pro-active role in monitoring and controlling their children’s online activities is likely to be more effective than the measures of this policy. Indeed, signalling that they do need to monitor their children can actually put their children in more danger, as there are considerable risks to children online even without anonymous posting.
Other kinds of fraud can be similarly avoided by raising awareness: people should be made to realise that sending money or bank details to people you don’t know is a bad idea. In fact, the removal of internet aliases may even encourage people to trust people they don’t know, but do know the real names of, even though that is no more advisable."
| Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.
Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.
[1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf
|
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: Computers have made life easier
The advent of the computer is one of the results of the development of the advantaged technology. While some people advocate for the idea that computers have made life more complex and stressful, others support the idea that computers have made life easier and more convenient. In my point of view, computers brought convenience and easiness to our life since they enabled easier access to information and increased qualities of the communication.
First, computers through internet made our access to information easier. Through computers we can collect appropriate data very quickly, store it in the hard disc as long as we want and use it when needed. Search engines such as google, yandex with many features relevant to the characteristics of the information needed enable search of information in few minutes. Social networks such as facebook, twitter have changed traditional sources of information and decreasing the monopolization of the information by the governments. Hence, with the use of computers we spend less time in search for information, and can get it from different sources.
Second, in a globalized world that we live computers made communications faster, visual and cheaper. With the use of email our messages can be delivered to any person in any part of the world in few minutes. In addition, it is convenient because you do not need to mile to the post office, but just click the mouse of your computer from the convenience of your arm chair in order to reach your friends, family members in any part of the world. Internet facilities such as msn, skype made visual communication possible. For example, via skype people not just communicate with their family members and friends, but also make interviews for employment, enrolment into universities. In result, communication has become cheaper, faster and visual.
Finally, I believe that computers have made life easier and more convenient in the ways that it broadened the sources of information and made access more quick, a long with the improving quality of the communication in many ways.
Argumentative components: computers brought convenience and easiness to our life
they enabled easier access to information and increased qualities of the communication
with the use of computers we spend less time in search for information, and can get it from different sources
Through computers we can collect appropriate data very quickly, store it in the hard disc as long as we want and use it when needed
Search engines such as google, yandex with many features relevant to the characteristics of the information needed enable search of information in few minutes
Social networks such as facebook, twitter have changed traditional sources of information and decreasing the monopolization of the information by the governments
computers through internet made our access to information easier
in a globalized world that we live computers made communications faster, visual and cheaper
With the use of email our messages can be delivered to any person in any part of the world in few minutes
it is convenient
you do not need to mile to the post office, but just click the mouse of your computer from the convenience of your arm chair in order to reach your friends, family members in any part of the world
Internet facilities such as msn, skype made visual communication possible
via skype people not just communicate with their family members and friends, but also make interviews for employment, enrolment into universities
communication has become cheaper, faster and visual
computers have made life easier and more convenient
it broadened the sources of information and made access more quick, a long with the improving quality of the communication in many ways | Major claims:
computers brought convenience and easiness to our life
computers have made life easier and more convenient
Claims:
computers brought convenience and easiness to our life
they enabled easier access to information and increased qualities of the communication
computers through internet made our access to information easier
communication has become cheaper, faster and visual
computers have made life easier and more convenient
it broadened the sources of information and made access more quick, a long with the improving quality of the communication in many ways
Premises:
with the use of computers we spend less time in search for information, and can get it from different sources
Through computers we can collect appropriate data very quickly, store it in the hard disc as long as we want and use it when needed
Search engines such as google, yandex with many features relevant to the characteristics of the information needed enable search of information in few minutes
Social networks such as facebook, twitter have changed traditional sources of information and decreasing the monopolization of the information by the governments
in a globalized world that we live computers made communications faster, visual and cheaper
With the use of email our messages can be delivered to any person in any part of the world in few minutes
it is convenient
you do not need to mile to the post office, but just click the mouse of your computer from the convenience of your arm chair in order to reach your friends, family members in any part of the world
Internet facilities such as msn, skype made visual communication possible
via skype people not just communicate with their family members and friends, but also make interviews for employment, enrolment into universities |
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 bias to subsidize men and not women. Once again women are receiving lower pay. | 0.561349311 |
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 is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Communism vs. capitalism
Quote: Europe has a superior form of government and Americans need to relize this. .
Response: Sorry, but what you do not realize is that we kicked out European forms of government in 1776. We saved European governments in WW2. The USA was the very FRIST government ever to be rulled by common and free men. When the USA first had the vote, Europe still had kings and emperors. Europe has become more like the USA and needs to work harder to become more like the USA. The USA had true freedom for more than 100 years before Europe started to get rid of their kings. In a few European countries they still have thier kings. I do not want to see a return of kings the the USA. Europe is almost like the USA, they just need to try a little harder. | 1.16667 |
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: I still find it ironic that so many people actually construe the 9th amendment to achieve a magical number of rights.
Response: Well, one has to use something to make the Constitution say something that it does not say; especially if it doesn't say something that one really, really, really wants to have.\n | 0.2 |
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. | But this time, while the formal process has not yet been completed, officials and experts said it will likely go through given President Donald Trump’s administration’s more hawkish attitude toward China. John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, is a proponent of the deal, said one former defense official. “There is a consensus that’s almost bipartisan in Washington that it’s time to be a bit more assertive against China,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. “This is the part where fighters are geopolitics with wings.” The U.S. military’s increasing concern over China’s actions in the Pacific come amid tense negotiations between the Trump administration and Beijing to end a tariff and trade rules standoff that has roiled global markets. National and financial security are inexorably tangled in the region, as China uses not just military but also economic tactics to coerce its vulnerable neighbors. “China represents our greatest long-term strategic threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific, and to the United States,” Adm. Phil Davidson, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, recently warned the Senate. Between the Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea, China has built roughly eight islands, populated with advanced surface-to-air missiles and airfields that can support bombers and other aircraft, said one U.S. Air Force official here. At the same time, Beijing has employed dubious maritime tactics in the South China Sea, such as using disguised military vessels, painted white to look like China Coast Guard ships, to intimidate Vietnamese fishing boats. China also has between 100,000 and 150,000 fishing vessels that “at any point they could operationalize” and use “to blockade, intimidate, or coerce other nations,” the official said. While an all-out war between the United States and China is unlikely, Taiwan is the one place where the two countries’ conflicting interests could lead to a military confrontation, said one senior U.S. defense official. Beijing has opposed any attempt by the island nation to declare independence since 1949, when the two split after Mao Zedong’s Communists won China’s civil war. “Separatists are the greatest threat to internal order and the Communist Party in China,” the official said. “Preservation of the Party is the #1 goal of the Chinese government, and one of the few interests that would lead them to risk a military confrontation with the US.” Xi’s January comments seemed to confirm this worry. “We make no promise to abandon the use of force, and retain the option of taking all necessary measures,” he said during the speech in Beijing, stressing that reunification must be the ultimate goal. Those options could also be used against “intervention by external forces,” Xi added. One U.S. military official here in Hawaii said the United States must send a message to China’s communist government that it will stand behind democratic nations, particularly Taiwan. “Anytime a nation says they are willing to forcibly assault an island, we should be concerned,” the official said. The United States has sent ships through the Taiwan Strait three times already this year, and six times in total since last July. The destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur and Coast Guard cutter USCGC Bertholf conducted the most recent transit, which Cmdr. Clay Doss, a spokesman for the U.S. 7th Fleet, said “demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.” The United States must also put a “premium” on transforming Taiwan’s military and defense capability so it can maintain a deterrent force, the military official here said. That includes mobile air defense systems, anti-ship cruise missiles, small fast attack boats, countermine capability, precision artillery, and modern aircraft to patrol its airspace. “No one wants to be pulled into World War III,” the official said. In an effort to beef up Taiwan’s defenses, the U.S. military sold more than $25 billion of equipment to Taipei from 2007 to 2018. There has also been talk of selling Lockheed Martin’s newest stealth fighter jet, the F-35, to Taiwan. Last week, Taiwan’s chief of the general staff, Adm. Lee Hsi-ming, visited Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, home to scores of U.S. and international F-35s. But a second senior defense official said an F-35 sale to Taipei likely would not be approved as it is “just a little leap too far with the advanced technology.” If the F-16 sale actually happens—and the two senior U.S. defense officials caution it is far from a done deal—it would be in addition to the country’s roughly 140 older F-16 aircraft, which are currently being upgraded to the latest standard. Any foreign military sale is a lengthy, complex process that involves approval by the Defense Department, State Department, and Congress. Aside from Taiwan, the United States is also looking to increase its arms sales to other countries in the region, which buy a lot of military equipment from Russia and China, said another U.S. Air Force official here. However, it is difficult for some of these poorer nations to get over the “sticker shock” of American equipment, the official said. The push to increase arms sales to Pacific nations is in part an attempt to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Through this effort, China is developing infrastructure and investing financially in countries across the world, particularly in its Pacific backyard. In a move that upset Washington and Brussels on Saturday, Italy became the first G-7 country to join the project. The problem, U.S. officials say, is that the Chinese investment comes with strings attached, including unsustainable debt, decreased transparency, and a potential loss of control of natural resources. For example, in December 2017, Sri Lanka gave Beijing a 99-year lease for the Hambantota seaport to avoid defaulting on its debt payments to China. It is through the combination of economic and military pressure that Beijing will gain influence if Washington does not push back, officials say. “They are able to use their economic buildup to create a foothold and … then sometimes back that up with military presence,” said the first Air Force official. “They know where the international response line is to their actions—if they stay below that line they are able to make slow but incremental steps to gain access and gain influence.” | There is a consensus that’s almost bipartisan in Washington that it’s time to be a bit more assertive against China This is the part where fighters are geopolitics with wings The U.S. military’s increasing concern over China’s actions in the Pacific come amid tense negotiations between the Trump administration and Beijing to end a tariff and trade rules standoff that has roiled global markets China represents our greatest long-term strategic threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific, and to the United States Between the Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea, China has built roughly eight islands, populated with advanced surface-to-air missiles and airfields that can support bombers and other aircraft, said one U.S. Air Force official here Beijing has employed dubious maritime tactics in the South China Sea, such as using disguised military vessels, painted white to look like China Coast Guard ships, to intimidate Vietnamese fishing boats. China also has between 100,000 and 150,000 fishing vessels that “at any point they could operationalize” and use “to blockade, intimidate, or coerce other nations,” the official said. Taiwan is the one place where the two countries’ conflicting interests could lead to a military confrontation Beijing has opposed any attempt by the island nation to declare independence since 1949 Xi’s January comments seemed to confirm this worry. “We make no promise to abandon the use of force, and retain the option of taking all necessary measures,” he said during the speech in Beijing, stressing that reunification must be the ultimate goal. the United States must send a message to China’s communist government that it will stand behind democratic nations, particularly Taiwan. Anytime a nation says they are willing to forcibly assault an island, we should be concerned The United States has sent ships through the Taiwan Strait three times already this year, and six times in total since last July. which demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific The United States must also put a “premium” on transforming Taiwan’s military and defense capability so it can maintain a deterrent force, the military official here said. That includes mobile air defense systems, anti-ship cruise missiles, small fast attack boats, countermine capability, precision artillery, and modern aircraft to patrol its airspace. No one wants to be pulled into World War III,” In an effort to beef up Taiwan’s defenses, the U.S. military sold more than $25 billion of equipment to Taipei from 2007 to 2018. There has also been talk of selling Lockheed Martin’s newest stealth fighter jet, the F-35, to Taiwan The push to increase arms sales to Pacific nations is in part an attempt to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Through this effort, China is developing infrastructure and investing financially in countries across the world, particularly in its Pacific backyard. In a move that upset Washington and Brussels on Saturday, Italy became the first G-7 country to join the project. It is through the combination of economic and military pressure that Beijing will gain influence if Washington does not push back, officials say. “They know where the international response line is to their actions—if they stay below that line they are able to make slow but incremental steps to gain access and gain influence.” |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: What's the difference between humans and chimps? According to the blowhards in the scientific world for the past 60 years, they said it was genetic mutations. But according to these three articles, including a September 2006 Science article it's cooked food and fire.....you see these things cause our genes to be expressed differently.
Response: Eating cooked food is a change in diet, evolutionary speaking its not different from if you stopped eating leaves and started eating fruit. Its still mutations that are resulting in evolution but the selection process for beneficial mutations includes social things as well as purely environmental ones.\n | 2.6 |
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: Hosting is very expensive
Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.
Candidate 1: "The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1.
1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:"
Candidate 2: "The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough."
Candidate 3: "Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing."
| The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1.
1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: abortion
Stance: CON
Aspect: complications | In addition , some states require doctors performing abortions to be present when their patient takes her medication ; this requirement can cause delays due to lack of hospital privileges and/or staff time during which physicians may discuss alternatives to surgical procedures if necessary ( see below ) .\5\ Some state laws restrict insurance coverage of abortion services even where federal law allows them . |
Subsets and Splits