instruction
stringclasses 21
values | input
stringlengths 35
47.2k
| output
stringlengths 2
23.6k
|
|---|---|---|
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: Hypocrisy
Suggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980. [1]
In that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions?
[1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html
Candidate 1: "This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related.
A reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first degree murder) – if that is the case, the felony murder rule should be abolished. If capital punishment were reserved for the worst of the worst then this racial bias would be almost eliminated. [1]
[1] Blecker, p.237"
Candidate 2: "Regardless of the categorisation there are some who are worst of the worst. It is up to individual states and societies to determine who qualifies as the worst of the worst for them."
Candidate 3: "The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society.
There is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?"
Candidate 4: "As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future.
However, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capital cases. “In the end, we must risk a minuscule possibility of error for the near certainty of justice.” [1]
[1] Blecker, p.275"
| The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society.
There is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?
|
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: Unlikely to make any progress
Weapons inspectors are unlikely to actually be able to totally disarm Syria. The OPCW has been given a target of dismantling Syria’s arsenal by the middle of 2014 but has admitted that it is a tight deadline that will require temporary ceasefires if the target is to be reached. This is because “For any particular move that the team has to undertake, the security situation is assessed. Unless we get the clearance from our UN colleagues, we don't move.” [1] Clearly if the weapons inspectors won’t go where there is a high risk to themselves they are unlikely to get the job done. Already inspectors have encountered situations where they can’t gain access to sites due to safety concerns. [2] Moreover in a conflict situation it will be extremely difficult to verify that all of Syria’s chemical weapons have been dismantled. There are two potential problems – will the Syrian government really be honest about the size of its stockpiles or will it quietly keep some back, and will the inspectors be able to gain access to all areas both government and rebel held? So long as there is conflict there will clearly be a chaotic situation in which weapons could be buried, or hidden, or simply never found.
[1] Ensor, Josie, ‘Chemical watchdog chief calls for Syria ceasefire’, The Telegraph, 9 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10367242/Chemical-watchdog-chief-calls-for-Syria-ceasefire.html
[2] BBC News, ‘Syria chemical weapons inspectors hail progress’, 17 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24566722
Candidate 1: "There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant."
Candidate 2: "The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.
[1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/09/12/would-the-syria-deal-be-a-coercive-diplomacy-success/"
Candidate 3: "That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress."
Candidate 4: "Withdrawing the inspectors is hardly going to make Syria live up to its commitments. Instead more pressure is needed on Syria when it does drag its feet."
Candidate 5: "Taking the weapons inspectors out of Syria need not be permanent, simply until there is peace and hopefully a new regime."
Candidate 6: "Conflict would not break out if the inspectors left; that point has passed. Now if the inspectors left it is likely that nothing would happen. Clearly the better option is for there to be significant pressure on Syria and Assad to bring about peace in the country – through sanctions, help for the rebels, even limited military action. This can then allow much more comprehensive weapons that don’t provide a chance for the Syrian regime to hide some amidst the chaos."
Candidate 7: "The deal that allowed weapons inspectors into Syria may have made peace further away not closer. By allowing Assad’s government to sign up to an international treaty while its legitimacy was contested by other groups showed that other governments accept only Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. This undid two years of attempts to delegitimise Assad; more than 30 countries had recognised Syria’s opposition as the country’s ‘legitimate representative’. [1]
[1] Freedman, Joshua Meir, ‘Don’t let Assad sign the Chemical Weapons Convention on Syria’s behalf’, AlJazeera, 29 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/don-let-assad-sign-chemical-weapons-convention-syria-behalf-201392981058347857.html"
Candidate 8: "Biological weapons are indiscriminate. This is why they are so horrific, but also why they are not a concern in this instance. Any use of biological weapons in Syria would likely affect not only rebels but also government supporters. The Syrian government can’t afford to use such a weapon if it wants to ever have a chance of regaining control of the country."
| That progress is difficult and slow is not a good reason to leave the country entirely and instead make no progress.
|
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. | In view of growing Middle Eastern turmoil since the Arab upheavals of 2011, the time has come for Israel to review the efficacy of its traditional policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. Given the upheavals cascading throughout the Middle East since 2011, Israel now faces a unique dilemma. Notwithstanding the logical underpinnings and coherence of its own unilateral foreign policies, whatever Jerusalem should decide to do or not do about the “big picture,” a vision that could include the advent of a nuclear Iran as a regional hegemon and heightened Shiite-Sunni infighting, this ever-volatile region could slip irretrievably into a still deeper level of chaos. If Israel is to remain secure in such an environment, it will have to re-evaluate its policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. To date, the “bomb-in-the-basement” policy has made good sense for Israel. Both friends and foes recognize that it possesses significant nuclear capabilities that are both survivable and capable of penetrating enemy defenses. Indeed, for adversaries not to acknowledge these capabilities would require a self-imposed intellectual deficit. But what should Israel do about its nuclear posture going forward? How should this ambiguous stance be adapted to the convergent and inter-penetrating threats of still-impending Middle Eastern/North African revolutions, a nuclear Iran, and Israel’s more or less constant concern about negotiating agreements with state and sub-state (terrorist) organizations? Conventional wisdom assumes that credible nuclear deterrence is somehow an automatic consequence of merely holding nuclear weapons. By this argument, removing Israel’s nuclear bomb from the “basement” would elicit new waves of global condemnation without offering any commensurate benefits. But conventional wisdom is not always wise. The pertinent strategic issues for Israel are not simple or straightforward. In the arcane world of Israeli nuclear deterrence, it can never be adequate that enemy states simply acknowledge the existence of the Jewish State’s nuclear arsenal. Rather, these states must believe that Israel holds usable nuclear weapons, and that Jerusalem would be willing to employ them in certain circumstances. The Middle East’s endemic instabilities create good reason to doubt that Israel would benefit from a continuation of the policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. It would seem, moreover, from certain developments within Israel’s defense and intelligence communities, that the country’s senior leadership fully understands such informed skepticism. To best augment such an understanding, Israel’s nuclear strategists should proceed interrogatively – in effect, creating a continuously self-refined “strategic dialectic” from which suitable answers and policies could then be incrementally extracted or systematically deduced. A basic point now warrants reiteration. Israel is imperiled by existential threats that fully justify its possession of nuclear weapons and that require a correspondingly purposeful strategic doctrine. Without such weapons and doctrine, Israel cannot survive over time, especially if neighboring regimes become more adversarial, more jihadist, and/or less risk-averse. Nuclear weapons and a correspondingly purposeful nuclear doctrine could prove vital to those more-or-less predictable scenarios requiring preemptive action and/or retaliation. Generically, military doctrine describes how a country’s national forces would fight in plausible combat operations. But the full importance of doctrine lies not only in the ways it can animate and unify military forces, but also in the particular fashion with which it can transmit messages. In other words, doctrine can serve a state (especially an endemically beleaguered state) as a critical form of communication with both friends and foes. Israel can benefit from such a broadened understanding of doctrine. The principal risks facing Israel are specific, not generic. This is because its adversaries in the region can be joined by: 1) the prospective new Arab state of “Palestine;” and 2) a newly nuclear Iran. In the worst case, such inauspicious “joinings” would take place at the same time. For Israel, merely possessing nuclear weapons, even when fully recognized by enemy states, can never automatically ensure successful deterrence. Though possibly counter-intuitive, a selective and nuanced end to deliberate ambiguity could substantially improve the overall credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent. With this in mind, the injurious potential of enemy attacks in the future could be reduced by making selectively available additional information concerning the security of Israel’s nuclear weapon response capabilities. This information, limited yet explicit, would center on major and inter-penetrating issues of Israeli nuclear capability and decisional willingness. Skeptics will likely disagree. It does, after all, appear reasonable to assert that nuclear ambiguity has worked so far. Arguably, while Israel’s current nuclear policy has done little to deter multiple conventional terrorist attacks, it has succeeded in keeping the country’s enemies, whether singly or in collaboration, from mounting any authentically existential aggressions. But as nineteenth-century Prussian strategic theorist Karl von Clausewitz observed in his classic essay On War, there comes a military tipping point when “mass counts.” Israel is very small. Its enemies have always had a huge advantage in terms of “mass.” Perhaps more than any other imperiled state on earth, Israel needs to steer clear of such a tipping point. An integral part of Israel’s multi-layered security system lies in effective ballistic missile defenses, primarily the Arrow. Yet even the well-regarded and successfully tested Arrow, augmented by the newer, shorter-range and systematically integrated operations of Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and related active defenses, could never achieve a sufficiently high probability of intercept to protect Israeli civilians. No system of missile defense can ever be entirely “leak-proof,” and even a single incoming nuclear missile that somehow managed to penetrate Arrow or its corollary defenses could conceivably kill tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Israelis. Leaving aside a jihadist takeover of nuclear Pakistan, the most obviously unacceptable “leakage” threat would come from an eventually nuclear Iran. To be effectively deterred, a nuclear Iran would need to be convinced that Israel’s atomic weapons were both invulnerable and penetration-capable. Any Iranian judgments about Israel’s capability and willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons would depend largely upon prior knowledge of these weapons, including their degree of protection from surprise attack as well as their capacity to punch through Iranian active and passive defenses. A nuclear weapons-capable Iran may already be a fait accompli. For whatever reasons, neither the international community in general nor Israel in particular has managed to create sufficient credibility concerning timely preemptive action. Such a critical defensive action would require complex operational capabilities, and could generate Iranian counter actions that could have a very significant impact on the entire Middle East. It is likely that Israel has already undertaken major steps in cyber-defense and cyber-war, but even the most strenuous efforts in this direction would not be enough to stop Iran altogether. The sanctions leveled at Tehran over the years have had an economic impact, but have had no determinable effect in terms of halting Iranian nuclearization or Tehran’s enhancements of intercontinental ballistic missile testing. A nuclear Iran could decide to share some of its nuclear components and materials with Hezbollah or with other terrorist groups. To prevent this, Jerusalem would need to convince Iran, inter alia, that it possesses a range of usable nuclear options. Jerusalem should now be calculating (vis-à-vis a prospectively nuclear Iran) the degree of subtlety with which it should consider communicating key portions of its nuclear status. Certain general details could be released about the availability and survivability of lower-yield weapons. Naturally, Israel should never reveal any specific information about its nuclear strategy, hardening, or yield-related capabilities. It is important to bear in mind that an Israeli move from ambiguity to disclosure would not necessarily help in the case of an irrational nuclear enemy. It is possible that certain elements of the Iranian leadership might subscribe to certain end-times visions of a Shiite apocalypse. By definition, such an enemy would not value its own continued national survival more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences. Were its leaders to be or to become non-rational, Iran could effectively become a nuclear suicide-bomber in macrocosm. Such a destabilizing prospect is improbable, perhaps even at the very outer fringes of plausibility, but it is not inconceivable. A more-or-less similar prospect exists in already nuclear and distinctly coup-vulnerable Pakistan. To protect itself against military strikes from irrational enemies, particularly attacks that could carry existential costs, Israel will need to reconsider virtually every aspect and function of its nuclear arsenal and doctrine. Removing the bomb from Israel’s “basement” could enhance Israel’s strategic deterrence to the extent that it would heighten enemy perceptions of the severity of the risks involved. This would also bring to mind the so-called Samson Option, which could allow enemy decision-makers to grasp that Israel is prepared to do whatever is needed to survive. Irrespective of its preferred level of ambiguity, Israel’s nuclear strategy must always remain oriented towards deterrence, not war-fighting. The Samson Option refers to a policy that would be based in part upon some implicit threat of massive nuclear retaliation for certain specific enemy aggressions. Israel’s small size means, among other things, that any nuclear attack would threaten Israel’s very existence and therefore could not be tolerated. A Samson Option would make sense only in last-resort or near last-resort scenarios. If it is to be part of a credible deterrent, a corresponding end to Israel’s deliberate ambiguity is essential. The really tough part of this transformational process will be determining the proper timing for any such action vis-à-vis Israel’s core security requirements, and also the expectations of the international community. In any event, the Samson Option should never be confused with Israel’s overriding security objective: to seek stable deterrence at the lowest possible levels of military conflict. In the often counter-intuitive strategic world, it can sometimes be rational to pretend irrationality. The nuclear deterrence benefits of pretended irrationality would depend, at least in part, upon an enemy state’s awareness of Israel’s intention to apply counter-value targeting when responding to a nuclear attack. But, once again, Israeli decision-makers would need to be wary of releasing too much specific information. Also worrisome, of course, is that the American president could be perceived as more-or-less genuinely irrational, prodding “anticipatory preemptions” against the US directly or (depending on particulars) against close allies such as Israel. None of this is meant to suggest that an Israeli movement away from deliberate nuclear ambiguity would be helpful only on matters specifically involving nuclear threats. The credibility and cost-effectiveness of any Israeli nuclear retaliatory threat would be greatest where the expected aggression was similarly nuclear. Still, there are circumstances in which a determined enemy or coalition of enemies might contemplate launching “only” a devastating conventional first strike against Israel, and conclude that such a move would be sensible because it would not elicit Israeli nuclear retaliation. If, however, the aggressors were aware that Israel was in possession of a wide array of capable and secure nuclear retaliatory forces, both in terms of range and yield, these enemies would be more likely to be successfully deterred. In this scenario, as a consequence of incremental and nuanced disclosures, Jerusalem would have signaled its adversaries that it can and will cross the nuclear retaliatory threshold in order to punish the inflicting of any potentially existential national harm. In more narrowly military parlance, Israel’s actions would be designed to better ensure “escalation dominance.” The nuclear deterrence advantages to Israel of taking certain steps away from nuclear ambiguity would lie in the signal it sends: that Israel will not need to retaliate with massive and disproportionate nuclear force. It will have other (more believable) retaliatory options. Such advantages could extend beyond the enhancement of credible threats of Israeli nuclear retaliation to supporting credible threats of Israeli nuclear counter-retaliation. If, for example, Israel should initiate a non-nuclear defensive first strike against Iran before that state becomes nuclear capable (not an “aggression,” but an act of “anticipatory self-defense” under international law), the likelihood of massive Iranian conventional retaliation could be diminished if there had already been open Israeli threats of nuclear counter-retaliation. In essence, by following an incremental path away from deliberate nuclear ambiguity, Israel would be less likely to replicate America’s much earlier nuclear posture vis-à-vis the then Soviet Union: a posture of threatening only “massive retaliation.” In the final analysis, specific and valuable security benefits would likely accrue to Israel as a result of a selective and incremental end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity. The optimal time to begin such an “end” may not yet have come, but it will have arrived the moment Iran or any other obvious foe verifiably crosses the nuclear threshold. If and when that moment arrives, Israel should have already configured 1) its optimal allocation of nuclear assets; and 2) the precise extent to which that configuration should be disclosed. Such preparation could meaningfully enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture. A fully recognizable second-strike nuclear force should then be revealed. Of necessity, such a robust strategic force – hardened, multiplied, and dispersed – would be fashioned to inflict a decisive retaliatory blow against major enemy cities. Iran or another prospective nuclear adversary, so long as it is led by rational decision-makers, should be made to understand that the costs of any planned aggression against Israel would always exceed any conceivable gains. To more comprehensively protect itself against potentially irrational nuclear adversaries, Israel still has no logical alternative to developing a conventional preemption option. Operationally, there can be no reasonable assurance of success against multiple hardened and dispersed targets. Regarding deterrence, however, “irrational” is not the same as “crazy.” Even an irrational enemy leadership can still maintain national preference orderings or hierarchies that are both consistent and transitive. For example, an irrational leadership can be subject to threats of deterrence that credibly threaten deeply held religious as well as public values. The principal difficulty for Israel is in ascertaining the precise nature of those core enemy values. Should it be determined that an Iranian leadership were genuinely “crazy;” that is, without any decipherable or predictable ordering of preferences, usual deterrence bets could necessarily give way to preemption. By definition, such determinations are strategic rather than jurisprudential. From the discrete standpoint of international law, perhaps in view of Iran’s genocidal threats against Israel, a preemption option could still represent a permissible expression of anticipatory self-defense. Again, this purely legal judgment would be entirely separate from any parallel or coincident assessments of operational success. For now, at least, these assessments all point overwhelmingly to the avoidance of exercising any residual preemption option. In the final analysis, whether or not a prompt or incremental shift from deliberate nuclear ambiguity to express nuclear disclosure is indicated will depend upon several complex and interdependent factors. They include the specific types of nuclear weapons involved; the presumed reciprocal calculations of designated enemy leaders (state and sub-state); the expected effects on rational decision-making processes by these enemy leaders; and the expected effects on both Israeli and adversarial command/control/communication processes. Correspondingly, if bringing Israel’s bomb out of the “basement” were ever expected to produce selected enemy pre-delegations of nuclear launch authority and/or new and seemingly less stable launch-on-warning procedures, the likelihood of unauthorized or accidental nuclear wars could be increased. It follows that Israel must prepare to continuously upgrade its national military nuclear strategy – in particular its longstanding policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. | the time has come for Israel to review the efficacy of its traditional policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity Given upheavals cascading throughout the Middle East since 2011 Israel now faces a unique dilemma the advent of a nuclear Iran as a regional hegemon could slip irretrievably into deep chaos the “bomb-in-the-basement” policy should be adapted to the convergent and inter-penetrating threats of still-impending Middle Eastern/North African revolutions a nuclear Iran and state and sub-state terrorist organizations enemy states must believe Israel holds usable nuclear weapons and that Jerusalem would be willing to employ them The Middle East’s endemic instabilities create good reason to doubt Israel would benefit from deliberate nuclear ambiguity Israel is imperiled by existential threats that fully justify its possession of nuclear weapons and that require a correspondingly purposeful strategic doctrine Without such weapons and doctrine Israel cannot survive especially if neighboring regimes become more adversarial or less risk-averse Nuclear weapons and a correspondingly purposeful nuclear doctrine could prove vital to scenarios requiring preemptive action or retaliation For Israel merely possessing nuclear weapons even when fully recognized by enemy states can never automatically ensure successful deterrence a nuanced end to deliberate ambiguity could substantially improve the overall credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent potential enemy attacks in the future could be reduced This information would center on capability and willingness there comes a military tipping point when “mass counts.” Israel is very small. Its enemies have always had a huge advantage in terms of “mass.” Israel needs to steer clear of such a tipping point the most obviously unacceptable threat would come from a nuclear Iran To be effectively deterred Iran would need to be convinced that Israel’s atomic weapons were both invulnerable and penetration-capable Any Iranian judgments about Israel’s capability and willingness would depend upon prior knowledge of these weapons A nuclear weapons-capable Iran may already be a fait accompli neither the international community in general nor Israel in particular has managed to create sufficient credibility concerning timely preemptive action Iran could share its nuclear components and materials with Hezbollah or with other terrorist groups To prevent this, Jerusalem would need to convince Iran that it possesses a range of usable nuclear options an Israeli move from ambiguity to disclosure would not necessarily help in the case of an irrational nuclear enemy Such a prospect is improbable even at the very outer fringes of plausibility Israel will need to reconsider virtually every aspect and function of its nuclear arsenal and doctrine Removing the bomb from Israel’s “basement” could enhance Israel’s strategic deterrence it would heighten enemy perceptions of the severity of the risks involved This would also bring the Samson Option which could allow enemy decision-makers to grasp that Israel is prepared to do whatever is needed to survive A Samson Option would make sense If it is to be part of a credible deterrent a corresponding end to Israel’s deliberate ambiguity is essential The nuclear deterrence benefits would depend upon an enemy state’s awareness of Israel’s intention to apply counter-value targeting when responding to a nuclear attack If aggressors were aware Israel was in possession of a wide array of capable and secure nuclear retaliatory forces, both in terms of range and yield, these enemies would be more likely to be successfully deterred Israel’s actions would ensure escalation dominance the signal it sends extend beyond the enhancement of credible threats of Israeli nuclear retaliation to supporting credible threats of Israeli nuclear counter-retaliation the likelihood of massive Iranian conventional retaliation could be diminished the moment Iran or any other obvious foe verifiably crosses the nuclear threshold If Israel already configured nuclear assets and disclosed could meaningfully enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture. Israel must continuously upgrade its national military nuclear strategy |
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: A man,a state,a church,a religian that can not change can not grow.
Response: But of course. Growth is a kind of change. But I suspect that certain religious attitudes are that change is bad. They prefer to hold the status quo as it was somewhere around 1600. | 16.666700000000002 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "if this person had waited and thought his decision through he wouldn't have missed out on the job opening in the same firm, but at a different position", target argumentative component: "he wouldn't have been unemployed" | support |
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: The internet provides a lot of valuable information
In the modern society, internet is considered as one of the most important inventions over the past century. Some people believe that several problems occur from an information on the internet. However, some say that the internet provides a lot of valuable information. In my opinion, I agree with the latter because the internet gives daily necessary information, people can gain knowledge and they can explore the world.
First of all, everybody would like to know what is going on around the world in their everyday lives. Sometimes, they want an information that can help them in daily life which the internet can provide all of these to people. For example, a businessman who has no time to watch a television or read a newspaper can receive news and check stock markets easily via the internet.
In addition, people can gain more knowledge by using the internet, the most useful technology in the world. Many people such as students can take online courses to study at home or they can watch beneficial videos which also teach them knowledge. Not only students but also everyone could get more information and knowledge. For instance, people who have problems with their health can search for more information about it.
Last but not least, The internet makes the world becomes smaller which is a good thing. This is because people who have no time or have financial problems could travel around the world by using the internet. They can see lots of picture and videos of many interesting places. Moreover, people can learn other countries's culture and tradition which makes them have more knowledge about that nations.
To conclude, people are satisfied with the internet and sometimes even thanks it because it helps us in studying, doing business and exploring the world. With valuable information it provides, people can enjoy their lives much more.
Argumentative components: the internet gives daily necessary information, people can gain knowledge and they can explore the world
the internet provides a lot of valuable information
people are satisfied with the internet and sometimes even thanks it
it helps us in studying, doing business and exploring the world
With valuable information it provides, people can enjoy their lives much more
Sometimes, they want an information that can help them in daily life which the internet can provide all of these to people
a businessman who has no time to watch a television or read a newspaper can receive news and check stock markets easily via the internet
everybody would like to know what is going on around the world in their everyday lives
Many people such as students can take online courses to study at home or they can watch beneficial videos which also teach them knowledge
Not only students but also everyone could get more information and knowledge
people who have problems with their health can search for more information about it
people can gain more knowledge by using the internet, the most useful technology in the world
people who have no time or have financial problems could travel around the world by using the internet
They can see lots of picture and videos of many interesting places
people can learn other countries's culture and tradition which makes them have more knowledge about that nations
The internet makes the world becomes smaller which is a good thing | Major claims:
the internet provides a lot of valuable information
people are satisfied with the internet and sometimes even thanks it
Claims:
the internet gives daily necessary information, people can gain knowledge and they can explore the world
the internet provides a lot of valuable information
people are satisfied with the internet and sometimes even thanks it
it helps us in studying, doing business and exploring the world
With valuable information it provides, people can enjoy their lives much more
everybody would like to know what is going on around the world in their everyday lives
people can gain more knowledge by using the internet, the most useful technology in the world
The internet makes the world becomes smaller which is a good thing
Premises:
Sometimes, they want an information that can help them in daily life which the internet can provide all of these to people
a businessman who has no time to watch a television or read a newspaper can receive news and check stock markets easily via the internet
Many people such as students can take online courses to study at home or they can watch beneficial videos which also teach them knowledge
Not only students but also everyone could get more information and knowledge
people who have problems with their health can search for more information about it
people who have no time or have financial problems could travel around the world by using the internet
They can see lots of picture and videos of many interesting places
people can learn other countries's culture and tradition which makes them have more knowledge about that nations |
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? | sometimes less of a choice is better. those with more experience win elections in a two part system. | 0.626303278 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: we should not legalise this because it could open up a black market that includes kidnapping and stealing peoples vital organs.; Topic: We should legalize organ trade | con |
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: Danger of parents indoctrinating their children.
Homeschooling allows the possibility of parents removing their child from wider society and indoctrinating them with their own beliefs. State schools teach history and social interaction within a framework agreed on by w wide variety of bodies within the social spectrum. If a parent's world view if so far detached from that perspective that he wishes to remove his child from school it is likely that those alternative view are questionable at best. These beliefs can involve can include gross intolerance for particular minority groups supported by false information. These ideas can still reach the child out of school, but the government has a duty to protect children from a regressive upbringing by at least offering a more constructive perspective. 'Andy Winton, the chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education, said: "School is a good safety net to protect children."' 1 1'Get tough on home tuition to weed out abuse, says review' from Guardian website
Candidate 1: "A school education is not mutually exclusive with family bonding. Just because a child attends school does not mean that their parent loses all influence upon their moral development. It is important for children to have a variety of different role models around them1. There is also no guarantee that the moral structure that parents might be instilling in their children away from any effective monitoring is beneficial. 1 'Why a Positive Role Model Is Important for Children', Caitlin Erwin, LiveStrong.com (2010)"
Candidate 2: "The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009)"
Candidate 3: "Merely ensuring the registration of a child as being home-schooled does not fulfill the state's right to ensure that all children are given a satisfactory education. Inspections will help, but parents will nevertheless be unable to provide to their children the opportunities present in a school environment. The inspections should require that parents offer their children at least an equivalent level of teaching to that he or she would receive at a school, yet how is a parent going to teach practical science? How are they going to dissect animals? The inevitable result of such a policy therefore would be the acceptance of inadequate education. The only policy that respects and protects a child's right to education is to ban home-schooling altogether."
Candidate 4: "Schools are often of poor quality and are failing the children. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from bed state schools. If the quality of education is sufficiently low in their eyes, they are entitled to be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice involved in becoming a 'home schooler'. It is reasonable that a parent should want to reject such educational theories and if they pass the inspection process then should not be denied that chance. "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone."1 1 'Academic Statistics on Homeschooling', Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, (October 22, 2004)"
Candidate 5: "Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011)"
Candidate 6: "It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago.
1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website"
Candidate 7: "Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their requirements. Once a student has needs of such a magnitude that demands it, they are educated in special schools specifically intended to help them, with staff trained to possess skills beyond that of a parent's instinct. Even if it were the case that home-schooling is better for the specific needs of exceptional students, the benefits of education in a wider context override the objection to class-based education. The experience of growing up alongside less and more able students produces individuals with greater understanding of their society1. 1'Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis' Scruggs, Thomas E. Mastropieri, Margo A. Exceptional Children (1996)"
Candidate 8: "Homeschooling is not mutually exclusive from social interaction1. Interaction happens outside the classroom, where it belongs instead of acting as distractions to learning. In addition, homeschooling events involve children of all different ages as well as adults and in this way children learn to interact with a greater range of individuals than they would come across in a class just containing children of their own age and often makes them more confident in interacting with adults in a relationship that is not just a simple teacher and pupil relationship2. Parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want to fall into its catchment area.
1Mike Fortune-Wood, ‘The “S” Word Socialisation’ from Home Education UK
2‘Civic Involvement’ HSLDA http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/Civic.asp"
Candidate 9: "Those that wish to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school the quality of which can be monitored by the state1. There are great dangers involved in exclusivity of faith. The adherents of all religions shouldn't shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people's beliefs and points of view. 1'Gove defends faith schools', Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk (2011)"
Candidate 10: "Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000)"
| The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009)
|
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "This will increase the social connections of the students", argumentative component 2: "They will study with new breath and great enthusiasm in new school" | No |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "A break gives students more benefits than harms", target argumentative component: "A break can disturb the focus of students and prove detrimental" | attack |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Given this framing concern regarding neointerventionism, this paper examines several considerations regarding truth and conceptions of “the human” in an effort to engage the abovementioned discussion within the field of international relations. Following the critical strand within this literature, my question is whether one facet of the self-justifying structure of neointer-ventionism is an operative framing of theories of truth underlying the explan-ans sought by foreign policy officials and state actors. In this vein, I turn to a (perhaps unlikely) source within philosophy of language, neopragmatist the-orist Richard Rorty, to offer an example of an antirepresentational and non-objectivist description of truth that may help explain the terms and stakes of neointerventionist policies. My claim, however, will be, following the respec-tive critical insights of Cornel West, Chantal Mouffe, and Sylvia Wynter, that neopragmatist efforts of the sort outlined by Rorty, while sophisticated in their HUMANIST BATTLES AND EMBATTLED HUMANISTS95 analyses of the nature of truth and forms of justification, fail to thoroughly engage the political conception of “the human” that orders and frames debates regarding objectivity, solidarity, and truth. Accordingly, I conclude by returning to the problematic of neointerventionism from Wynter’s framings of what she calls the “coloniality of truth” and “embattled humanisms.”NEOINTERVENTIONISM AND ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONSTo elaborate the relevance of neopragmatist discourses of truth for contem-porary political theory, it is important to highlight some of the discursive mechanisms by which modern nation-states justify interventionist efforts. As the study of neointerventionism highlights, epistemic framings of inter-ventionism have shifted over the course of the twentieth century. As Helen Dexter articulates the shift, in a classic liberal model, the causes for interven-tion within a given context are organized in terms of advancing “state inter-ests or as an instrumental response to insecurity” (2007, 1056). Additionally, alongside what might be considered the “old” imperialism of the nineteenth century of the U.S. and Western nation-states there are now added forms of secular humanist justifications for intervention that are based on the moral tenets of cosmopolitanism, human rights, and the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations worldwide (1056). Dexter describes some significant changes in the justifications for interventionist efforts following the end of the Cold War. In particular, she outlines the rise of a field of study that proposes that the end of the Cold War ushered in a new era of warfare. Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, theorists in interna-tional relations, security studies, political economy, and global governance studies have described a shift away from state-centered forms of warfare to the emergence of intrastate violence. Such intra-state violence enacted, they propose, by armies, paramilitaries, militia, child soldiers, criminals, and terrorists result in massive civilian deaths, human rights abuses, and forced displacements (1059). Additionally, the motivations for such “new” forms of warfare, these theorists argue, are “private economic gain” and a “backward-looking identity politics of ethnicity or religion and supported by a decentralized and informal economy reliant on external contributions and criminality” (1058–59). Dexter’s challenge to this narrative is that such reconceptualizations of violence and intra-state conf lict often overlook the many examples of non-Western intra-state warfare that occurred prior to the 1990s. For example, the decolonial struggles of Nigeria-Biafra, Angola, and Mozambique, and the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s in Brazil and Argentina are potential counterexamples to this narrative. Additionally, 96ANDREA J. PITTSas mentioned above, the “new war” view places the motivations for con-f lict on criminality, terrorism, and mostly private efforts for individual gain. Notably, Stathis Kalyvas has argued, the central claim is that civil conf lict prior to the end of the Cold War was largely motivated by “broad, well-de-fined, clearly articulated, universalistic, ideologies of social change” (2002, 102). The contrast to this, then, is that new intra-state conf lict is believed to be motivated by the pursuit of personal gain that bears no principled or even ideological legitimations by rebel and insurgent groups. In this vein, consider former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s statement in 1999 that the “pursuit of diamonds, drugs, timber concessions and other valuable com-modities” drives internal conf lict, or current Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s statements that drug trafficking is being carried out by “thugs,” and that sanctuary cities are providing “lawless” safe havens for criminals (Annan 1999; Sessions 2017a and 2017b). | analyses of the nature of truth and forms of justification, fail to thoroughly engage the political conception of “the human” that orders and frames debates regarding objectivity, solidarity, and truth. epistemic framings of inter-ventionism have shifted over the course of the twentieth century old” imperialism of the nineteenth century of the U.S. and Western nation-states there are now added forms of secular humanist justifications for intervention that are based on the moral tenets of cosmopolitanism, human rights, and the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations worldwide (1056). significant changes in the justifications for interventionist efforts Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s studies described a shift away from state-centered forms of warfare to the emergence of intrastate violence. Such intra-state violence enacted, they propose, by armies, paramilitaries, militia, child soldiers, criminals, and terrorists result in massive civilian deaths, human rights abuses, and forced displacements (1059). Additionally, the motivations for such “new” forms of warfare, these theorists argue, are “private economic gain” and a “backward-looking identity politics of ethnicity or religion and supported by a decentralized and informal economy reliant on external contributions and criminality” new intra-state conf lict is believed to be motivated by the pursuit of personal gain that bears no principled or even ideological legitimations by rebel and insurgent groups. |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | "The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons today poses a grave threat to international peace and security. As has been noted, these weapons claim the highest number of victims in the world by far, as the headlines never fail to remind us. They are responsible for almost 90 per cent of the victims of armed conflict and for more than 500,000 deaths a year.", François Delattre, 18 December 2017 I thank the Japanese presidency for convening this important meeting and the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Nakamitsu, for her very enlightening briefing. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons today poses a grave threat to international peace and security. As has been noted, these weapons claim the highest number of victims in the world by far, as the headlines never fail to remind us. They are responsible for almost 90 per cent of the victims of armed conflict and for more than 500,000 deaths a year. The stakes and challenges involved are enormous and lie at the heart of all topics, as the Secretary-General emphasizes in his report (S/2017/1025). The illicit trade in these weapons continues to fuel conflict, exacerbate armed violence and incite organized crime and terrorism. France, like many other countries, has experienced this first hand during the terrorist attacks that have struck its terroritory in recent years. Beyond that, the stability and development of entire regions —the Sahel and the Levant, for example — are threatened. I recall that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development seeks a world free from corruption, illegal trafficking and the illegal circulation of weapons, all of which threaten the political stability and development of humankind. In the face of these extreme threats, we must be able to mobilize in unison. Given that we can respond effectively to these challenges only if we do so together, in 2016 France took the initiative to issue a political declaration on this subject, supported by a cross-regional group of 63 countries. The effort for the political mobilization of all countries of all regions must continue. It is also important to turn this commitment into reality by seeking to achieve the robust implementation of existing instruments through concrete measures. We can do so first through the provisions of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which remains the cornerstone of our work. France will have the honour of chairing the third Review Conference, to be held in New York in June 2018. France is also mobilized in the context of the Arms Trade Treaty and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Various kinds of action — upstream of weapons trafficking to prevent their spread, and downstream to interrupt trafficking flows — must be pursued. Among these, I would highlight the development of adequate national legislation, the reduction of illicit stocks in circulation thanks to collection and destruction campaigns, improved security and physical management of weapons and ammunition stocks, and the strengthening of police and customs control, which are all areas in which we could work. Significant progress has already been achieved. Many States have improved their legislation and the issue of small arms is now better reflected in regional organizations. However — and this is my third point — we cannot stop there.Increased international cooperation in the marking, registering and tracing of small arms and light weapons is also essential. The exchange of information remains a key element if we wish to progress together. France welcomes the introduction of various tracking systems and databases such as iTrace and iArms. These initiatives allow the registration of seized weapons and, through access to the registers thereby created, improve the sharing of information. Private actors, especially industrial producers and civil society, also play a central role and must therefore be involved. France is also convinced of the central importance of international assistance, which must be based on two major principles. First, we must adopt a cooperative and assistance-based approach that is tailored to the needs of the beneficiaries. Along with capacity development, that is one of the keys for the success of international assistance. Secondly, it is important to seek coordination among various assistance initiatives in order to avoid duplication and guarantee the maximum efficiency of all actions undertaken. My country, for its part, resolutely contributes to the fight against the supply of arms to armed terrorist groups in the Sahelo-Saharan region, in particular with Chad, the Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and Mauritania,which constitute the Group of Five for the Sahel. France also conducts numerous training activities for the benefit of States such as Benin, the Niger and Mali. | "The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons today poses a grave threat to international peace and security. As has been noted, these weapons claim the highest number of victims in the world by far, as the headlines never fail to remind us. They are responsible for almost 90 per cent of the victims of armed conflict and for more than 500,000 deaths a year.", François Delattre, more than 500,000 deaths a year emphasizes in his report (S/2017/1025). The illicit trade in these weapons continues to fuel conflict, exacerbate armed violence and incite organized crime and terrorism. France, like many other countries, has experienced this first hand during the terrorist attacks that have struck its terroritory in recent years. , illegal trafficking and the illegal circulation of weapons, all of which threaten the political stability and development of humankind. In the face of these extreme threats, we must be able to mobilize in unison. . We can do so first through the provisions of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which remains the cornerstone of our work. Various kinds of action — upstream of weapons trafficking to prevent their spread, and downstream to interrupt trafficking flows — must be pursued Increased international cooperation in the marking, registering and tracing of s |
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 UK should encourage others to reduce their own stocks of nuclear weapons.
Britain as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom is obliged to pursue “nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” [1] While complete disarmament by all states with nuclear weapons is a long way off the United Kingdom could make a good start by getting rid of its own weapons. A Nuclear Weapons state giving up its weapons after sixty years would show that nations can manage without nuclear weapons and so act as an encouragement to others to do the same.
[1] ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCIRC/140, 22 April 1970, Article VI.
Candidate 1: "That Britain is not currently threatened with nuclear Armageddon as it was during the cold war does not mean that such a threat could never again occur. Britain must remain prepared for any eventuality which has to include the unthinkable such as the United States no longer being an ally.
The world is not yet a safe place there are many unstable states, such as North Korea, developing nuclear weapons capabalities. Beyond these dangers it is easily conceivable that the world will once again face tensions similar to those of the cold war. Given the length of time it would take to rearm should such tensions occur Britain would be safer to keep its nuclear armament."
Candidate 2: "Sharing procurement of nuclear weapons delivery systems makes simple sense through sharing the cost. The UK only contributed 5% of the original cost of trident but the UK systems are just as potent. This however does not mean that the UK weapons systems are not independent. Operationally the UK has complete control over its weapons. The USA cannot in any way prevent, veto or forbid the UK from using its own nuclear weapons. [1] It is independent in the way that matters.
[1] Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Policy, ‘Your freedom of information request about the UK Nuclear deterrent’, 19 July 2005."
Candidate 3: "One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm."
Candidate 4: "A state of the art nuclear weapons system is always going to be costly and no one wants to cut corners for the risks that could create. Yet it is money well spent when compared to the damage which would be caused if Britain was attacked due to not having a nuclear deterrent."
| One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm.
|
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: Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.
Increasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Indeed, one policy goal of many migrant rights activists is for open borders and free and unrestricted migration across them. A right to family reunification would also increase migration. This can be problematic in many countries. It may worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.
[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Economic Costs.” http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .
Candidate 1: "There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change."
Candidate 2: "The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.
[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 ."
Candidate 3: "Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.
Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.
Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, and increased economic protections for migrants is necessary in many states for them to receive such treatment. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]
It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when they are granted economic protection that allows them to work alongside natives.
[1] Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.migrant-rights.org/2010/10/01/fact-checking-the-israeli-gover... ."
Candidate 4: "Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.
Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to improve their protections in some standard manner. Instead, immigration policy and even rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.
This approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights."
Candidate 5: "Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system of taking money from taxpayers in certain countries and giving it to people other countries, this money is then sent abroad and spend abroad resulting in a net loss to the economy. Not all migration is bad, but legislation that would protect the right of immigrants to send money home would solidify this unfair system. Remittances are a short-term fix. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.
The supposed intangible benefit to receiving countries of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause."
Candidate 6: "Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.
Economic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.
The growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. This is particularly the case in the United States, which is famously a nation of immigrants, where the architect of the Apollo program Wernher von Braun immigrated from Germany and Alexander Graham Bell the inventor of the telephone was born in Scotland. More recently immigration has been instrumental in the success of Silicon Valley co-founder of Google Sergey Brin is Russian born while the co-founder of Yahoo Jerry Yang came from Taiwan. [1] The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.
Source countries are equally aided by migration. Able workers who would be unemployed in their home land are able to work in a new country, and then send money—“remittances”—back to their families. Migrants sent home $317 billion in remittances in 2009, which is three times the world’s total foreign aid, and in at least seven countries this money accounted for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. [2] One of the important goals of migrant rights is to protect these remittances, and thus to protect the economies of source countries that require them to survive.
Irene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: "When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit." [3] Both sides are likely to benefit more if migrants are welcomed and allowed to join the formal economy; they will be better able to work, they will pay taxes and national insurance to the host country and they themselves will be more secure so will be able to send more home. This benefit to the source state could be even greater if the benefits from paying national insurance were made portable and continue to be paid when they return.
[1] Marcus Wohlson, ‘Immigration chief seeks to reassure Silicon Valley’, USA Today, 22 February 2012, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-22/silicon-valley-tech-i...
[2] Human Rights Watch, "Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty," April 10th, 2003 , http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/04/10/saudi-arabiagcc-states-ratify-migr... .
[3] Irene Khan, "Invisible people, irregular migrants," The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 , http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141601 ."
Candidate 7: "Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.
The right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.” [1] This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries.
[1] Asmita Naik, “The Right to Family,” Human Rights Education Associates,” Accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=425 ."
Candidate 8: "Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.
International law, like the U.N. Migrant Rights Convention, and any international regulatory body that requires the nations of the world to increase protections for migrants would be a violation of state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many citizens from less-well-off ones."
Candidate 9: "The receiving countries would not accept a regulatory body. The current international regulatory bodies such as the WTO and World Bank are essentially run by the rich countries for the benefit of the rich countries and so they accept it. Any body regulating migrants’ rights would, however, be doing the opposite-- benefiting the poorest -- meaning the rich countries would try to prevent the creation of such an organisation.
In the unlikely event that the regulatory body could be created it would face a gargantuan task. How could global migration be monitored and regulated by an international body when even national bodies in rich countries are not able to keep track of all migrants in their nations? Yet the international body would also have to monitor the conditions of migrants in many much poorer countries where the infrastructure currently does not exist."
Candidate 10: "While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated."
Candidate 11: "The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty."
Candidate 12: "Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.
The countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education [1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university. [2]
[1] Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, ‘How Extensive is the Brain Drain?’, Finance and Development, Volume 36, No. 2, June 1999, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/06/carringt.htm
[2] ‘When More Is Worse’, Newsweek, 8 August 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/08/09/when-more-is-worse.html"
Candidate 13: "In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. Because they usually come to work, the workplace is even the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants. Similarly it is impossible for the conditions for illegal migrants to be improved; if they are found they will be deported and so there is no need to improve their conditions, although of course they should be well treated while in the process of deportation. Moreover improving minimum conditions would be counterproductive as they would attract more migrants to immigrate illegally knowing that they will get minimum living conditions that may well be considerably better than those that they had in their home country."
Candidate 14: "Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future."
Candidate 15: "Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.
Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.
[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html ."
Candidate 16: "Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.
Migrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group." [1]
This is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.” [2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.
Migrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages. [3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected.
[1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583 .
[2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.”
[3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171"
Candidate 17: "Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]
[1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf"
Candidate 18: "An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.
With an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.
[1] Deparle, "Global Migration.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html"
Candidate 19: "The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and public services – a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.
[1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf"
| The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.
[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 .
|
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: Most beaks close to average size, some larger than average, some smaller.
Response: Right. But in this case, there are two different populations\n | 1.14286 |
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: Tim Stanley : why are you banging on about it?
Proposition: John Ashworth and Daisy Cooper are banging on about the Prime Minister receiving donations | Challenging |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Don't be silly--no one is voting your family out of existence. Though it might make a fascinating Criss Angel or David Blane trick. This is simply about whether or not any group that wants to come along and redefine marriage should get to do so. I agree it's not an 'academic exercise', but not for the same reason you think.\nI no more take 'pleasure and joy' from something like this than any other public act of due process, e.g. voting to change the speed limit.\nFrankly, I've always thought it was pretty odd--if not downright disturbing--that some gay pride proponents seem to hold up the legality of their union as the determinant of their joy and emotion, when they are completely free to have whatever union they want regardless. After all, no one's going to block the door to the chapel, and I can guarantee you I'd be joyfully married with or without that piece of paper called a license.
Response: You jsut don't get it. You act like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. You as a hetero get to go and get married to the person of your choice but I do not. What part of that do you not understand. You say this isn't personal and for you this is true but for me the man I love is nothing but a stranger to me in the eyes of the law. How cruel can you be | -2.0 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: legalizing the organ trade would make the organs to expensive to all those on need, making them available to only the wealthiest of patients.; Topic: We should legalize organ trade | con |
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: Greater awareness will increase donations
There is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.
[1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx
[2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013, http://dw.de/p/17Dth
Candidate 1: "The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide
The purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] .
[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480"
Candidate 2: "The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another
In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.
[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804."
Candidate 3: "Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1]
[1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804."
Candidate 4: "Self-preservation is our primary moral duty
Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed."
Candidate 5: "Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide
It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]
[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480"
Candidate 6: "It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.
Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo."
Candidate 7: "Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated."
Candidate 8: "This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others
By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.
Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living"
Candidate 9: "This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.
As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.
[1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013). http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2480"
Candidate 10: "Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated."
| It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.
Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.
|
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. | Climate Change: Assume for the sake of argument that everything environmentalists say about global warming is true. If that's the case, then there is no chance of stopping it. That's what the latest UN report on global warming clearly demonstrates. The headlines in stories reporting on the UN's latest climate change report all say something along the lines of: "Urgent changed is needed to prevent global catastrophe." If global temperatures climb more than 1.5 degrees Celsius — compared with preindustrial temperatures — all hell will break loose, the UN says. There will be catastrophic flooding, drought, more weather extremes. Hundreds of millions will be susceptible to poverty by midcentury. Even at 1.5 degrees, terrible things will happen. To be clear, we are highly skeptical of these doom-and-gloom scenarios. Past predictions of global warming catastrophes have failed to emerge. In the U.S., for example, there's been no trend toward more extreme weather, drought or flooding, even though the planet has already warmed 1 degree Celsius. This year's tornado season, in fact, has been the mildest on record. What's more, environmentalists have issued these "point of no return" warnings for decades, only to revise them once the supposed deadline passes. Global Warming Is Inevitable But even if the alarmist predictions are true, there's nothing that can plausibly be done at this point to stop it. That's the real message of the annual UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report. The chart contained in the "Summery for Policymakers" shows projected changes in global temperatures over the next 100 years. It also shows that temperatures will top the supposed 1.5-degree limit by around 2040, even if the world makes drastic reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions within the next two decades. How drastic? The UN's forecasts all assume that the entire world become entirely carbon free by 2055 … at the latest. That's just 37 years from now. It also assumes that the world makes massive reductions in other greenhouse gases, such as methane. Here's an example of what the UN says would have to happen within the next 12 years to meet that goal. Keep in mind, this is the low end of the UN's proposed changes. 60% of the world's energy would have to come from renewable sources by 2030, and 77% by 2050. (The Department of Energy forecasts that renewables will account for just 27% of the U.S.'s electric power generation by 2050.) Coal use would have to drop 78%, oil 37% and natural gas 25% — compared with 2010 levels — within 12 years. (Last year, global coal demand increased, and use of natural gas has massively climbed in the U.S.) There'd have to be a 59% increase in nuclear power by 2030, and a 150% increase by 2050. (Good luck getting environmentalist to buy into that). Farmers would have to figure out how to cut methane emissions by 24% by 2030, (and still feed a growing worldwide population). Even those massive reductions won't produce enough CO2 reductions it. So, the UN assumes the world will also remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. That's despite the fact that nobody knows how to do that today. Unprecedented, Or Wishful Thinking? The UN itself admits that achieving anything like these levels of greenhouse gas reductions "would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure, and industrial systems." It goes on to say that such an undertaking would be "unprecedented in terms of scale." And it would require a "significant upscaling of investments." In other words, massive amounts of money. To say that changes of this magnitude within that time frame are unrealistic would be putting it mildly. The last big attempt to get the world to cut CO2 emissions turned out to be a farce. As the UN itself admitted, the CO2 reduction pledges made by the 195 countries that signed on to the Paris Accords won't come anywhere close the level of CO2 reductions it says are needed to avoid "catastrophe." And countries aren't even living up to those pledges. In the EU, carbon emissions started climbing again last year. Germany is way off its carbon reduction goals, despite plans to spend $580 billion to overhaul its energy system. A recent report showed that only nine of 195 countries have submitted their CO2 reduction plans to the UN. Does anyone honestly believe that these countries will suddenly decide to entirely decarbonize their economies in three decades? Adapting To Global Warming So, if the chances of avoiding a climate "catastrophe" are gone, what should be done? Sure, we can research carbon removal technology. And, as the U.S. has shown, a free-market economy — simply by encouraging cost cutting and efficiency — can generate CO2 reductions without the heavy hand of government. But in our view, the most prudent course of action isn't to wreck the global economy in hopes that it might make a small difference in the climate 100 years from now. The more reasonable approach is to adapt to whatever changes do occur. Even if the horror stories told by environmentalists come to pass, mankind can and will adjust. After all, the human race has shown the ability to survive in the most extreme climates. And it's done so with far less technological sophistication. We've learned to live in deserts. And in the Arctic. In hurricane alleys and earthquake zones. The idea that we won't be able to handle changes caused by a slightly warmer planet over the next millennium is ludicrous. Meanwhile, if the environmentalists' horror stories don't come true, we won't have wasted trillions upon trillions of dollars tilting at windmills. | global warming there is no chance of stopping it. That's what the latest UN report on global warming clearly demonstrates. If global temperatures climb more than 1.5 degrees Celsius — compared with preindustrial temperatures — all hell will break loose, the UN says be highly skeptical of these doom-and-gloom scenarios Past predictions of global warming catastrophes have failed to emerge there's been no trend toward more extreme weather, drought or flooding, even though the planet has already warmed 1 degree Celsius environmentalists have issued point of no return" warnings for decades only to revise them once the supposed deadline passes Global Warming Is Inevitable But even if the alarmist predictions are true there's nothing that can plausibly be done at this point to stop it. That's the message of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC report temperatures will top the 1.5-degree limit by 2040 even if the world makes drastic reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions within the next two decades. How drastic? The UN's forecasts all assume that the entire world become entirely carbon free by 2055 That's just 37 years from now. Here's an example of what the UN says would have to happen within the next 12 years to meet that goal this is the low end of the UN's proposed changes 60% of the world's energy from renewable by 2030 and 77% by 2050 The Department of Energy forecasts that renewables will account for 27% of the U.S.'s by 2050 Coal use would have to drop 78%, oil 37% and natural gas 25% compared with 2010 levels within 12 years Last year global coal demand increased and gas has massively climbed There'd have to be a increase in nuclear power by 150% increase by 2050 Good luck Farmers would have to cut methane by 24% by 2030 Even those massive reductions won't produce enough CO2 reductions it. Unprecedented, Or Wishful Thinking? The UN itself admits that achieving anything like these levels of greenhouse gas reductions "would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure, and industrial systems it would require a "significant upscaling of investments." In other words massive amounts of money To say that changes of this magnitude within that time frame are unrealistic would be putting it mildly The last big attempt to get the world to cut CO2 emissions turned out to be a farce Paris won't come anywhere close the level of CO2 reductions it says are needed to avoid "catastrophe." countries aren't even living up to those pledges In the EU, carbon emissions started climbing Germany is way off its carbon reduction goals, despite plans to spend $580 billion to overhaul its energy system Does anyone honestly believe that these countries will suddenly decide to entirely decarbonize their economies in three decades? Adapting To Global Warming the chances of avoiding a climate "catastrophe" are gone the most prudent course of action isn't to wreck the global economy in hopes that it might make a small difference in the climate 100 years from now Even if the horror stories told by environmentalists come to pass mankind can and will adjust the human race has shown the ability to survive in the most extreme climates with far less technological sophistication We've learned to live in deserts. And in the Arctic. In hurricane alleys and earthquake zones The idea that we won't be able to handle changes caused by a slightly warmer planet over the next millennium is ludicrous |
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. | It is commonly supposed that white racism is a disease of sorts, such that if white people would only come to understand this, and just cure themselves, then black people would to a large extent and at long last be unshackled from the chains of their subordination and oppression. Thus construed, racism has been singled out as the culprit, the primary hindrance to black progress, the fundamental burden placed on the backs of black people. But this argument is unsound because the basic premise – namely, that racism is a disease – is false. After a long and absorbing study of the problem of white racism and black oppression, I have come to the contentious conclusion that racism is not the disease that it has been made out to be, but a mere symptom of an underlying disease, a peculiar and uniquely European pathology diagnosed by Nietzsche as ressentiment, and by Sigmund Freud as a cultural neurosis which characterizes European civilization. Ressentiment is the fundamental burden of being black in a white-dominated world. It is a disease that manifests itself in manifold and insidious ways, with racism being its most overtly recognized form. Indeed, even racism is a cover to hide an essential aspect of this disease, namely, a desperate and obsessive need for self-aggrandizement. This obsessive need for self-aggrandizement has given rise to a host of problems constitution the so-called “pathology of black life conditions.” The “peculiar institution” of slavery, the disempowerment of indigenous peoples by imperialism and colonialism, as well as the infamous Jim Crow laws, and the prevailing system of anti-black discrimination, have all been consequences of the white obsession with self-aggrandizement. Among the manifold ways of its expression, as we shall see, ressentiment entails elements of xenophobia and misanthropy. It is the psychological project of racism to hide both of these entailments. Racism would not be possible without xenophobia; and its ruthlessness in the service of imperialism and colonialism would have been impossible without the misanthropy which it hides. Ressentiment has remained undetected precisely because of its insidiousness, and because of our habit of interpreting phenomena from the surface. Thus, for example the victim blaming psychology so well explored by William Ryan in his book blaming the victim (1971) has served effectively to mask the disease of ressentiment. In fact, victim blaming is a form of psychological projection in which, as I shall show is an essential self protecting mechanism in the modus operandi of ressentiment. And no one has suffered more from the victim-blaming syndrome than have black people in a white-dominated world. I shall show why black people have been the most logically appropriate, though profoundly unfortunate victims of the ressentiment projection. As victims of the white mans obsession with self-aggrandizement black people have failed in their liberation efforts because of their lack of self knowledge. This is not to cast aspersion on the collective intelligence of black people which would be absurd. Rather, it is to say that historically, black people have been conditioned to think of themselves as quite other than they actually are: they have been beaten, coerced, and cajoled into believing – or into professing belief in – these falsehoods, which have been exclusively negative. These teachings, lessons in black inferiority, have come from the Europeanswith a single overriding motive, namely, their own self aggrandizement, which necessitated the myth of black inferiority, has been the greatest obstacle to black liberation and hence to any meaningful black progress. | It is commonly supposed that white racism is a disease if white people just cure themselves, then black people would be unshackled from subordination and oppression racism has been singled out as the primary hindrance to black progress this argument is unsound racism is not the disease but a mere symptom of an underlying disease, a pathology diagnosed as ressentiment characterizes European civilization. Ressentiment is the fundamental burden of being black in a white-dominated world. It is a disease that manifests itself in insidious ways, with racism being its most overt form racism is a cover to hide an essential aspect a desperate and obsessive need for self-aggrandizement. This obsessive need has given rise to a host of problems slavery the disempowerment of indigenous peoples imperialism and colonialism Jim Crow laws, and the prevailing system of anti-black discrimination, have all been consequences of the white obsession with self-aggrandizement. Racism imperialism and colonialism would have been impossible without the misanthropy which it hides Ressentiment no one has suffered more from the victim-blaming syndrome than have black people As victims of the white mans obsession with self-aggrandizement black people have failed in their liberation efforts because of their lack of self knowledge. black people have been conditioned to think of themselves as quite other than they actually are: they have been beaten, coerced, and cajoled into believing – or into professing belief in – these falsehoods, which have been exclusively negative lessons in black inferiority, have come from Europeans single overriding motive, namely, their own self aggrandizement, the myth of black inferiority, has been the greatest obstacle to black liberation and hence to any meaningful black progress. |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Well Whoop-Dee-Doo! If you want Homosexual Marriage, be prepared to shell out more $$$ when Uncle Sam comes to collect when, in the inevitability,you should call it splitsville.
Response: Everyone expects that. What they don't and shouldn't have to expect is that they will be specifically targeted and have to pay more, be penalised more, etc. than hetero couples such as yourself or me and my husband.\n | 0.2 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: We have seen too many cases of overturned judgments as new technologies and evidence have come to light, rendering capital punishment inherently problematic.; Topic: We should abolish capital punishment | pro |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "it is crucial to alter automobiles to the other means of transportation and to legislate to control automobiles", argumentative component 2: "the air gets to be polluted and it causes respiratory disease of the local inhabitants" | Yes |
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. | President Donald Trump’s most nerve-racking trait—his unhinged impulsiveness, driven more by random stimuli and shifts in mood than by careful study or long-held principles—might be having an oddly stabilizing influence in the world’s crisis-strewn regions, at least for a little while. Consider what Richard Nixon called “the Madman Theory.” In the early years of his presidency, he told his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, to warn the North Vietnamese that Nixon was crazy. Nixon is obsessed with Communism, Kissinger was supposed to say. He can’t be restrained when he’s angry, and for God’s sake, he has his hand on the nuclear button. In two days’ time, Nixon predicted, Ho Chi Minh will be “begging for peace.” The ploy didn’t work, in part because the North Vietnamese didn’t believe it. Whatever the many other eccentricities that Nixon had displayed in a quarter-century of public life, he wasn’t a madman, at least not in that way. Trump, on the other hand, really does seem to be, if not quite insane, at least erratic, unpredictable, prone to outbursts of violence detached from coherent policy (e.g., firing 59 cruise missiles at Syria, to little effect, followed by nothing) and drastic reversals of opinion (e.g., recent statements on NATO, China, Russia, Janet Yellen, and the Ex-Im Bank, to name a few). I am not suggesting that Trump has intentionally adopted Nixon’s madman strategy (or any strategy at all). I am proposing, however, that his behavior might be having the effect that Nixon desired. It may well be that certain world leaders, most notably Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, watch Trump in motion and, as a result, start acting cautiously—as well clamping down on their more antic-prone allies—because they just don’t know what this guy might be capable of. Xi, for instance, recently turned away a boatload of coal from North Korea, one of the country’s chief exports, as a further signal of displeasure over Kim Jong-un’s nuclear tests. We will see if Putin cracks the whip on Bashar al-Assad. In his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, the flamboyant nuclear strategist Herman Kahn likened certain kinds of conflict to the game of highway chicken. Two cars speed toward each other, head on, late at night. In the standard version of the game, there are three possible outcomes. One driver gets nervous and veers away; he loses. Both drivers veer away; the game’s a draw. They both keep zooming straight ahead; everybody dies. But Khan posited a fourth outcome and an unconventional way to win: One driver yanks the steering wheel from his dashboard and visibly throws it out the window; the other driver, seeing that his opponent can’t pull off the road, has no choice but to veer away himself. In this analogy, Trump is the guy who’s thrown the steering wheel out the window, possibly without knowing what the steering wheel does. The other drivers, Russia or China, can’t be sure of his motives, but they’d better get out of the way anyway. | Trump’s unhinged impulsiveness might be having an oddly stabilizing influence in the world’s crisis-strewn regions Trump really does seem to be erratic, unpredictable, prone to outbursts of violence detached from coherent policy his behavior might be having the effect desired world leaders, most notably Putin and Xi watch Trump in motion and, as a result, start acting cautiously—as well clamping down on their more antic-prone allies—because they just don’t know what this guy might be capable of. Xi, for instance, recently turned away a boatload of coal from North Korea On Thermonuclear War Trump is the guy who’s thrown the steering wheel out the window, possibly without knowing what the steering wheel does. The other drivers, Russia or China, can’t be sure of his motives, but they’d better get out of the way anyway. |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Rush vs Slower Pace
Modern technologies and globalization have increased the speed of life in the past decades tremendously. However, while the majority of people live on the fast lane, others decide to reduce the speed and take their time. To draw an entire picture, we have to consider both the advantages and disadvantages of this increased speed of life and ask our self which way of life is better. In my opinion, it is very important to live life at a slower pace, because living in a hurry comes along with several disadvantages.
First, living your life on the fast lane is very stressful and can affect your health. If you are always hurried and you do not take a certain time off, your body will react to your stressful lifestyle. Many hardworking people have diseases, like the burn-out syndrome, because their bodies cannot hold the pace. For instance, my father had a a breakdown several years ago due to his stressful job. After several weeks off his body was restored, now he has reduced the tempo of his lifestyle and is doing fine.
In addition, living your life at a slower pace increases your happiness. If you are always facing excessive stress you cannot care for your beloved's. If you do not hurry yourself you can take more time for your family and friends. Caring for your social environment will increase your happiness and also reduce your stress level. For example, a friend of mine lives at a slow pace and is really satisfied about it, because he can enjoy his family and cultivate his friendships.
Finally, quality takes time. When you are faced with difficult tasks and you do them in a rush, you are more likely to do avoidable errors or mistakes. Doing tasks in a hurry may end up in not considering all necessary aspects or opportunities. As a result you might make mistakes, you would not have done with more patience. To illustrate, I once wrote an essay in a hurry and got a bad grade, because I made few mistakes I could have avoided.
In conclusion, there is to say that, given the arguments above, living a slower life is advantageous for your health, your happiness and even the quality of your work. | it is very important to live life at a slower pace
living in a hurry comes along with several disadvantages
If you are always hurried and you do not take a certain time off, your body will react to your stressful lifestyle
Many hardworking people have diseases, like the burn-out syndrome
their bodies cannot hold the pace
my father had a a breakdown several years ago due to his stressful job
After several weeks off his body was restored, now he has reduced the tempo of his lifestyle and is doing fine
living your life on the fast lane is very stressful and can affect your health
If you are always facing excessive stress you cannot care for your beloved's
If you do not hurry yourself you can take more time for your family and friends
living your life at a slower pace increases your happiness
Caring for your social environment will increase your happiness and also reduce your stress level
a friend of mine lives at a slow pace and is really satisfied about it
he can enjoy his family and cultivate his friendships
When you are faced with difficult tasks and you do them in a rush, you are more likely to do avoidable errors or mistakes
Doing tasks in a hurry may end up in not considering all necessary aspects or opportunities
you might make mistakes, you would not have done with more patience
quality takes time
I once wrote an essay in a hurry and got a bad grade
I made few mistakes I could have avoided
living a slower life is advantageous for your health, your happiness and even the quality of your work |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Hi all. I'm using my secondary account just because I anticipate a heated discussion and I don't really want my normal account to be dragged in. I will still be actively participating though, so I hope that's ok Ok, so I've been an active Redditor for over 5 years. I have a love hate relationship with this website. Over the past year, that relationship has gradually shifted more to the hate side. When I first joined Reddit, it was a much smaller community. Discussion was more intimate. People were much more familiar with Reddiquette and seemed more willing to have genuine conversations with people. Posts by celebrities and politicians and businesses were practically nonexistent. As the site has expanded, we've experienced a flood of users. This site has gone through something that I like to call the YouTube Effect. If you've ever read the comments on a YouTube video, you know what I mean. Comments here have gotten more hateful, more racist, more sexist, more xenophobic, more transphobic, and more extreme in general. Now, I like to think that I'm a fairly cautious and open minded individual. I occasionally engage in political conversation about various topics, although recently I've started to back away from having these conversations because the discussion is not as stimulating as it once was. I have been accused of being a misogynist, a misandrist, a racist, and a skeleton warrior. In reality, I am none of these things. I am a normal person who is interested in engaging in conversation with people who think differently than I do. This has become more and more difficult to do as subreddits, particularly large ones, have become inundated by hate speech. Anyone who tries to chime in with a dissenting opinion is immediately labeled a Tumblrina or Skeleton Warrior or Feminazi or any number of useless labels. This is where my post comes in. SRS, which stands for Shit Reddit Says, is a subreddit dedicated to exposing and denouncing hate speech on this site. I myself have never actually posted there, and I rarely read it mostly because reading hate speech makes me sad and angry. But anytime I do visit that subreddit, I don't see any of the ridiculous posts that many Redditors claim to exist there. People get really angry and upset whenever SRS calls out a sexist or racist or otherwise hateful comment post Why? I fully support freedom of speech, no matter how crazy or hateful one's opinion is. However, too many people think freedom of speech means freedom to not be criticized by anyone. I find it refreshing to see a subreddit dedicated to calling out hate speech on a website that is increasingly being flooded by ignorant, hateful ideas, and I think it's ironic that so many people get offended by SRS. Change My View? | I think SRS plays an important role on Reddit. |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: marijuana legalization
Stance: PRO
Aspect: war on drugs | & gt ; Ending the war on drugs means ending prohibition entirely , so yes , ending the federal ban on marijuana would mean ending the war on drugs completely . |
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? | most homeschooled students are not learning the appropriate subjects needed to further their education. | 0.777906094 |
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: The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class
One of the more divisive problems in America is the increasing inequality between the wealthy and members of other classes. The harms that could, and have resulted from this extend to the Occupy Protests in the tail end of 2011, as well as riots With the rich consistently seeming to get richer despite the poor economic climate, many of the less rich within the American economy feel that the state is playing against them, conferring advantages on those best able to lobby politicians and make large election campaign donations. This is problematic when it is state mechanisms that will enable American’s who lack access to costly universities to better educate and train themselves, thus making them more employable thus allowing them to help push the American economy out of recession.
A popular consensus has emerged amongst America’s middle class, which portrays the recession as an event triggered by the rich, with rhetoric regarding “Greedy Bankers” playing into the public discourse on the ineffectiveness of state regulation of large financial institutions.
The American Jobs Act redresses the balance between the wealthy top tier of American society and its middle and working classes. In doing so, it helps to alter the perception of the rich and their contributions to society.
The burdens currently confronted by America’s middle class are addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, payroll tax, a pay-as-you-earn tax that is withheld from employee’s wages, will be significantly reduced. As such, any families with a large number of working members will be subjected to a much lower tax burden. This would provide a tax cut of around $1,500 to a typical American family.2
Given also the higher tax burden placed on the rich with this tax, and the system that results is likely to be skewed more strongly in favour of working Americans. Further, changes in the taxation system will also be able to sure up any loopholes that have been exploited by the rich to avoid taxes.
Finally, the jobs act redresses problems where the largest subsidies go to things such as charitable giving and mortgage interest – presumably things which are paid by people who need subsidies the least. Caps will be placed on such tax breaks under the act and as such, money will be more likely to go to people who need it more – the poor or unemployed.
In bringing about these changes, better economic circumstances are created for the poor and the balance between rich and poor is likely to become smaller.3
Candidate 1: "The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive.
The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks.
Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4
As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions."
Candidate 2: "Whilst the jobs act does not fully cover infrastructure, more acts can be drafted in order to deal with this problem. Further, the financial sector is likely to now be significantly more wary of the problems that initially caused the recession. This is because the collapse of Lehman and the Sub Prime crisis as well as the following recession significantly hurt their businesses. As such, especially so soon after the global banking crisis, such companies are going to be more careful about taking unnecessary risks. Whilst this attitude might decay over time, by the time it has decayed enough that action must be taken, it is likely that America will be out of recession.
Further, it is believed that right now, the general health of the corporate sector is sound. This means that whilst there is the possibility that businesses will opt not to use tax breaks to increase wages and pay debt, it is fairly unlikely. Even if another recession hits, the current strength of the corporate sector is such that it is likely to be able to weather the storm and as such, CEOs are likely to wish to spend windfall that they do get in order to get ahead of the competition for the next boom phase.9"
Candidate 3: "Even if the American jobs act is not deficit neutral, it will have a significant effect in the future, through spending more in the present to speed the American recovery period and prevent a double dip recession. During the boom period it will be significantly easier to pay any increased deficit back. Further, even if the American credit rating is to be downgraded further, changes in the credit rating are played to be more significant than they actually are. The Japanese for example have had their credit rating downgraded by Moody’s to Aa3, however, bond interest in Japan is 2% at its highest levels on long term Japanese bonds whereas it is 3% in the U.S.7
The change in the credit rating of Japan did very little to increase interest on its bonds. The reason is that investors still believe that Japan is a stable market despite its deficit which amounts to 233% of annual economic output. As such, even if the credit rating of the U.S. does get downgraded it is likely to do little in terms of increasing U.S. bond repayments over time. Further, financing the American Jobs Act through a greater deficit could be seen by many rating agencies as a fiscally responsible move and as such would not lead to them downgrading the rating at all.8"
Candidate 4: "The American Jobs Act may be projected to create a lot of jobs. However, this comes following tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus package in 2009. In the past these measures to help the economy failed, with unemployment remaining stagnant at around 25 million despite the efforts by the government in 2009.
The reason this occurred in 2009 is that despite the stimulus package there was a strong degree of uncertainty within the economy. As such, even though consumers and producers were facing a lower tax burden it became apparent that neither group was willing to take big risks in a highly uncertain economic environment. The possibility of recession was all too apparent, and this affected both business and consumer confidence.
Given the Eurozone crisis at the moment, the situation in 2011 is very similar, with much of the world economy waiting on the outcome in Europe to see whether recession or recovery awaits. Such a climate is not conducive to risk taking on the part of firms. Hiring extra workers, for example, might be a profitable activity, however, it also entails significant risk as the firm has to be able to guarantee that it will get more out of the worker than it ends up paying.
The current state of world markets is not conducive to a stimulus package and it would simply be better to wait out the Eurozone crisis and then deal with the coming problems in an environment that is more confident and that is populated by actors equipped with greater understanding of the direction of the world and American economies.6"
Candidate 5: "Whilst long term unemployment is an issue within America, it is not an issue to be focused on during a time of economic recovery and potential recession again. In a recession there are significantly more people who suffer from temporary unemployment because businesses that are unable to survive the hardships of the recession often shut down.
This means following a recession there are a large number of skilled workers in the work force who lack jobs. As recovery gains pace, these workers are re-employed at a greater rate than other workers are made redundant. Given that these people are already skilled and can already make a very significant contribution to the economy, it seems illogical that a bill intended to promote economic recovery should focus on the long-term unemployed at all. Presumably, most people who suffer from long term unemployment will take a few years to acquire the skills needed to meaningfully contribute to the economy. At this point, the economy will likely already be out of recession. This is indicated by the fact that in the latest recovery period, long term unemployment rose presumably because the extra employment capacity in the economy was just being retaken by those who were temporarily unemployed.2
It is more beneficial that the state concentrates entirely on bringing the country out of recession and recovery and into a period of sustainable growth more quickly. Under these circumstances, the state will have more resources to divert to the long term unemployed, as fewer people will require help due to temporary unemployment. The state can then focus on assisting these individuals, so that when the next recession comes state services will be ready to ease the damage."
Candidate 6: "Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1"
| The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive.
The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks.
Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4
As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.
|
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: Expansion is in the interests of NATO
Expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine is in the interests of NATO. After more than a decade without a clear role, the alliance now once again stands for the principle of solidarity between western liberal democracies. The hopes of the 1990s for a new world order in which a democratic and liberalising Russia would see partnership with NATO and other western clubs as strongly in its own interest died during the Presidency of Vladimir Putin. Russia once again poses a threat to Europe and needs to be contained or at least shown that NATO has not forgotten about it. This is shown by President Putin’s continuing lashing out at foreign countries for funding NGOs and plans to boost defense spending. [1] Extending NATO up to Russia’s southern border will signal the West’s strength and determination and force Russia to respect the alliance and its members.
[1] Cullison, Alan, ‘Putin Warms West on Interference’, The Wall Street Journal, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577064260032325868.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Candidate 1: "It is far from the settled will of the Georgian and Ukrainian peoples that they wish to join NATO. Georgia’s President Saakashvili did wish to join, but after his disastrous attempt to regain control of South Ossetia was unable to bring his country with him. Saakashvilli was defeated in parliamentary elections and ran up against his term limit at the end of 2013 [1] opening the way towards better relations with Russia. Public opposition to NATO membership in Ukraine since the US-led war in Iraq 2003 outweighed support for joining the alliance. [2] Ukraine is split over NATO membership, with most of the Russian-speaking East of the country firmly opposed to the idea, and only about 30% support overall. [3] The crisis of Ukraine’s pro-western coalition over how to respond to the conflict in Georgia showed how divisive the question is; the President firmly supported Georgia while the PM kept quiet. [4] In any case, NATO membership should not automatically be extended to every nation which wishes it, but only offered when the current members of the alliance judge it to be in their strategic interest to do so.
[1] Traub, James, ‘The Georgia Syndrome’, ForeignPolicy, 13 August 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/13/the_georgia_syndrome
[2] Katchanovski, Ivan, ‘The Orange Evolution? The “Orange Revolution” and Political Changes in Ukraine.” Post-Soviet Affairs, 24 (4), 2008, p. 376.
[3] Atwell, Kyle, ‘Two Different Paths to NATO: Georgia and Ukraine’, Atlantic Review, 7 November 2008, http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1206-Two-Different-Paths-to-NATO-Georgia-and-Ukraine.html
[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16
[4] Arel, Dominique, ‘Ukraine Since the War in Georgia’, Survival, Vol.50, No.6, pp.15-25, http://www.ukrainianstudies.uottawa.ca/pdf/Arel%20Survival%20Final.pdf , p.16"
Candidate 2: "Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
[1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/russia-back-to-the-future/7029/
[2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99, https://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summervarettoni.pdf , p.89"
Candidate 3: "The West needs to deal with Russia
Western countries should seek to compromise with Russia, as they need its cooperation in a whole range of areas. Global efforts against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, energy security and organised crime will all fail without Russian participation. Russia’s veto power on the United Nations Security Council also means that alienating Moscow could frustrate international efforts to bring security and freedom to states such as Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Iraq. In particular the west needs Russian help in Syria; the UNSC has only been able to get humanitarian resolutions on the country when Russia has been cooperative. [1] And NATO depends on Russian goodwill to allow supplies into Afghanistan via the safer northern route, [2] cooperation that is likely to be withdrawn if Georgia and Ukraine remain candidates for membership.
[1] BBC News, ‘Syria crisis: UN Security Council agrees aid resolution’, 23 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26311212
[2] Cullison, Alan, ‘Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes’, The Telegraph, 28 November 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204753404577066421106592452.html"
Candidate 4: "The West is reliant on Russia’s Gas reserves
NATO’s European members have an additional reason not to offend Russia by continuing to expand the alliance in defiance of Moscow. Much of Europe depends on imports of Russian gas for their energy needs, Russia currently supplies 25% of European gas and this may rise to as high as 55% by 2020. [1] Unfortunately the Kremlin has made clear over the past three years that it is prepared to use its control of energy as a political weapon. It has already limited the flow of energy to states (e.g. Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia) who have annoyed it on several occasions, and may well be prepared to turn lights, heating and factories off across Europe in retaliation for interference in its near abroad. [2]
Russia’s energy riches in a time of high oil prices also mean that it is far richer and self-confident than at any time since the fall of communism. The profits of its energy wealth have also enabled its military to be strengthened. This means that even if Moscow backed down in response to western assertiveness in the past, it is now determined to overturn past humiliations.
[1] Paillard, Christophe-Alexandre, ‘Rethinking Russia: Russia and Europe’s Mutual Energy Dependence’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, No.2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp.65-84, http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-and-europe%E2%80%99s-mutual-energy-dependence
[2] Weir, Fred, ‘Why Russia is cutting off gas supplies to Belarus’, The Christian Science Monitor, 21 June 2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0621/Why-Russia-is-cutting-off-gas-supplies-to-Belarus"
Candidate 5: "In retrospect, the decision to welcome the former Soviet states in the Baltic into NATO appears foolish. They continue to have a prickly relationship with Russia, which has some legitimate concerns about the treatment of large Russian minorities in Latvia and Estonia, and about the siting of US nuclear defences. Their entry into NATO was forced upon Russia, which naturally saw it as an aggressive move designed to humiliate it, and marked the point when its pro-western policy shifted to a more nationalist and confrontational approach. [1] It also weakened the unity of NATO as there are quite legitimate doubts as to whether all the alliance’s members would really go to war with Russia over the integrity of, say, Estonia. Given this history, it would be madness to compound the problem by extending NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine.
[1] Fraser, Malcolm, ‘Ukraine: there’s no way out unless the west understands its past mistakes’, theguardian.com, 3 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/ukraine-theres-no-way-out-unless-the-west-understands-its-past-mistakes"
Candidate 6: "NATO is divided on how to deal with Georgia
The conflict in Georgia showed how NATO is already badly divided over how to respond to Russia. Old European states such as Germany and Italy are much readier to accommodate Russian interests than America, [1] which is supported by newer NATO members such as Poland and the Czech Republic. The same fault has been seen in relation to the response to Russian moves in Crimea; Germany has been much more cautious. [2] The United States faces a danger that if it pushes for NATO expansion in the face of Russian objections, it will split the alliance completely.
[1] Traynor, Ian, ‘Nato allies divided over Ukraine and Georgia’, guardian.co.uk, 2 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/02/ukraine-georgia
[2] Dempsey, Judy, ‘Europe Is Completely Divided Over How to Respond to Russia’, Carnegie Europe, 4 March 2014, http://carnegieeurope.eu/2014/03/04/europe-is-completely-divided-over-how-to-respond-to-russia/h2gi"
| Further expansion is not in NATO’s interests. The alliance is based on the principle that the security of one is the security of all, so that all members will go to war if any one member is attacked. This is a very serious commitment and should not lightly be extended to new nations. The irresponsible manner in which Georgia provoked a conflict with Russia, ignoring US warnings, shows the danger of being sucked into quarrels in which most NATO members have no strategic interest. It was obvious from this conflict that Georgia could not defend itself so the burden would fall on NATO. [1] Like the breakaway regions of Georgia, Ukraine also contains many Russian-speakers who look to Moscow for protection, especially in the Crimea which hosts Russia’s Black Sea fleet. [2] If Ukraine had been a member of NATO when Russia moved troops into Crimea then NATO would be a dangerous confrontation with Russia.
[1] Tayler, Jeffrey, ‘Russia: Back to the Future’, the Atlantic, September 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/russia-back-to-the-future/7029/
[2] Varettoni, William, ‘Crimea’s Overlooked Instability’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3, Summer 2011, pp.87-99, https://csis.org/files/publication/twq11summervarettoni.pdf , p.89
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Basically, I believe that I should adjust fine tune myself and find where my values really lie. By meditating daily and attempting to remain as mindful as possible at all times, I am increasing my capabilities and molding myself into a better person before I enter the real world as a college graduate working at something for a living. I frequently question my own beliefs and viewpoints, and I pay close attention to anything during my day that irritates me my reaction to such an event exposes me to something more about my sense of self and therefore it allows me to function more properly in daily life from then on. I find this work to be more important than any work I do for the classes I'm taking at college. I am still getting by, and I will earn my degree, but it's totally peripheral to my inner work. I believe that this is the best possible use of my time currently. | I believe that working on my own consciousness is the most important thing I can be doing at the age of 21 |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: abortion
Stance: CON
Aspect: death | Deaths resulting from illegal abortions were not included because they occurred outside hospitals . |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Children from poorer families are more successful in the future life.
According to some people, child who is brought up in less well-off family is more quick-witted and can tackle with an adult life problems better than who is from affluent ones. However, I completely disagree with this position.
To begin with, children from poorer families are prone to have bad habits such as: crime, thievery and thuggery. Moreover, these people will not have an access to a good education. As a result, they can be proselytized into bad isms. For example, most of the terroristic groups try to attract uneducated people, because the person with better education has a wider outlook, which will allow no brainwash. In this sense, people with lower level of education have more proneness to be attracted in such isms.
Nevertheless, people who are born in well-off families have access to good education, which will have a positive impact on their later life. Secondly, children from rich families have better skills on how to use money, because they use it a lot of times. Finally, wealthy families can afford better health services and costly medicines, which will be very beneficial for the health of a child. For instance, many good medicines cost vast amounts of money, which cannot be afforded by poorer families.
In conclusion, I disagree with the opinion that children who are brought up in less well-of families are, likely, more successful in the future life due to aforementioned reasons. | I disagree with the opinion that children who are brought up in less well-of families are, likely, more successful in the future life
these people will not have an access to a good education
they can be proselytized into bad isms
most of the terroristic groups try to attract uneducated people
the person with better education has a wider outlook, which will allow no brainwash
people with lower level of education have more proneness to be attracted in such isms
children from poorer families are prone to have bad habits such as: crime, thievery and thuggery
they use it a lot of times
wealthy families can afford better health services and costly medicines, which will be very beneficial for the health of a child
many good medicines cost vast amounts of money, which cannot be afforded by poorer families
people who are born in well-off families have access to good education, which will have a positive impact on their later life
children from rich families have better skills on how to use money |
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: LOL!\n1. You have a mistaken Ockham's Razor.
Response: Really? Except for that one point, I believe I got it entirely right.\n | 0.4 |
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 does not hold many people & is not worth the money spent to keep it open | 0.909359638 |
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 censorship laws are a relic from the past.
The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship. [1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since. [2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.
[1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent, http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberten.htm
[2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005
Candidate 1: "Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.
Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls."
Candidate 2: "Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation)."
Candidate 3: "Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers.
The debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent."
Candidate 4: "The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females [1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females. [2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former. [3]
[1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html
[2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/index.php
[3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm"
Candidate 5: "Age of consent laws prevent the most vulnerable receiving contraceptives.
Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies."
Candidate 6: "Consent Laws are discriminatory.
Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17. [1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.
[1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm , ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm , HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm"
Candidate 7: "Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure."
Candidate 8: "We must protect the vulnerable from themselves.
It is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer. [1]
Unfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are.
[1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8420690.stm ,"
Candidate 9: "We should defend children’s freedom of expression.
The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.
The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves."
Candidate 10: "We must protect the vulnerable in society.
Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.
The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations"
Candidate 11: "Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others."
Candidate 12: "Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'."
Candidate 13: "It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all"
| Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.
|
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: then surely you can't explain away why enzyme a and co-enzyme b are separate compounds but work together to produce another by-product.
Response: Well, in the case above, it was step-by-step. First, an existing enzyme was modified to a new use, and over time, became refined to work better and better. This is the way evolution works. Nothing is de novo; it's always a modfication of something else. Second, a mutation produced a regulator that only allowed the enzyme to be produced if the substrate was available. Again, this was refined by natural selection over time. In the end, the newly-evolved system was irreducibly complex, because all three parts have to be present for the system to work. \nAnd do show us your numbers proving that such processes can't produce new information. If you don't know how, I'd be pleased to show you how a mutation changes the information in a population. | -0.833333 |
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. | Even his own officials did their best to neuter his outbursts. He often contradicted himself—he wanted to keep the 1951 defense treaty while “realigning” the country and suggested that some of his ideas were only for the long term. Some observers theorized that Duterte was only acting crazy, attempting to gain leverage in order to squeeze additional cash out of Washington in return for accepting U.S. military forces. Or maybe Duterte was hoping to win a firmer U.S. commitment to defend the Philippines, including its contested territories, and press China for the return of Scarborough Shoal. However, he does not seem that organized and calculating. More likely that Americans and Filipinos alike are seeing the real Duterte. If so, Washington’s plan to expand military cooperation and U.S. use of Philippine territory is dead. American officials might be able to hunker down and preserve the legal basis for the U.S. military’s presence, if not all of the ongoing activities. Then Duterte’s successor could return to usual Philippine form, satisfying U.S. desires. However, his visit to the PRC suggests that the coming years are likely to be much less stable. In Beijing, Duterte did the full monty in Chinese, so to speak. He proclaimed his Chinese heritage and announced his “separation from the United States.” America had “lost” both economically and militarily, he asserted. Moreover, he stated, “I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world—China, Philippines, and Russia. It’s the only way.” This is bizarre nonsense. Neither China nor Russia wants to take on the world. They hope to make more friends, especially of states formerly in America’s orbit. And if they are looking for partners, they probably won’t choose a semi-failed state governed by an inconsistent hothead. However, it is becoming harder for even Duterte’s most loyal aides to walk back his statements. His economic ministers said he only meant he wanted stronger Asian integration, but that is not what he said. Talk of allying with China and Russia against the United States is a lot more serious than seeking investment and trade deals from them. | Even his own officials did their best to neuter his outbursts. He often contradicted himself—he wanted to keep the 1951 defense treaty while “realigning” the country and suggested that some of his ideas were only for the long term. he does not seem organized and calculating. he stated, “I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world—China, Philippines, and Russia. It’s the only way.” This is bizarre nonsense. Neither China nor Russia wants to take on the world. They hope to make more friends, especially of states formerly in America’s orbit. And if they are looking for partners, they probably won’t choose a semi-failed state governed by an inconsistent hothead. it is becoming harder for even Duterte’s most loyal aides to walk back his statements. His economic ministers said he only meant he wanted stronger Asian integration, but that is not what he said. Talk of allying with China and Russia against the United States is a lot more serious than seeking investment and trade deals from them. |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Environmental protection vs Economic developments
Environmental protection and economic developments might be the biggest issues in the 21st century. They are both important because they are vital to human's future and welfare. However, since the budget and the recourse are limited, governments must choose between these two issues. In my opinion, I believe that tackling down environmental problems is of the first priority rather than economic developments. The following are reasons why.
First, environmental protection is far more urgent than economic developments. All the living creatures live together on our mother Earth and she is the only one. Without Earth, whatever great civil constructions and economic achievements will end up in vain because we will all perish as she's gone. Just like a man that needs a healthy body, all the living creatures as a whole needs a strong planet as well.
Second, the influence on environmental problems are boarder and more profound than economic issues. Environmental problems are global rather than local, which means that no countries can be spared from these problems. Take global warming for example, when the temperature increases, the whole globe is affected, suffering the hotter weather together. The melting ice mountain not only jeopardizes habitats of animals living in the polar region, but its effects of the rising sea level also endangers the residents living in the small island near the equator, since the rising sea water could drown them. Environmental issues can not be divided by nationality because all humans are simply entwined together by our only home-Earth.
Some people might argue that economic issues are global and critical as well thus can not be put aside. They may say that if the economic is in a very bad situation, people would revolt instantly, while environmental problems seem to be more like chronic diseases that would not burst out right away. However, the truth is that we've been encountering so many sighs and warnings of global climate anomalies and other environmental crisis right now. It would be unwise to still deny the truth and keep focusing on economic developments and unfortunately, usually the economic developments are even the causes of environmental damages.
In conclusion, environmental conservation is more essential than economic developments in the aspects of urgency and ranges of influence. As mentioned in the second paragraph, how can a man live happily if he is unhealthy? Similarly, how can we live safely and joyfully when our home is devastated by, ironically, by ourselves? | tackling down environmental problems is of the first priority rather than economic developments
we will all perish as she's gone
Just like a man that needs a healthy body, all the living creatures as a whole needs a strong planet as well
Without Earth, whatever great civil constructions and economic achievements will end up in vain
All the living creatures live together on our mother Earth and she is the only one
environmental protection is far more urgent than economic developments
Environmental problems are global rather than local, which means that no countries can be spared from these problems
Take global warming for example, when the temperature increases, the whole globe is affected, suffering the hotter weather together
The melting ice mountain not only jeopardizes habitats of animals living in the polar region, but its effects of the rising sea level also endangers the residents living in the small island near the equator
the rising sea water could drown them
Environmental issues can not be divided by nationality
all humans are simply entwined together by our only home-Earth
the influence on environmental problems are boarder and more profound than economic issues
if the economic is in a very bad situation, people would revolt instantly, while environmental problems seem to be more like chronic diseases that would not burst out right away
the truth is that we've been encountering so many sighs and warnings of global climate anomalies and other environmental crisis right now
economic issues are global and critical as well thus can not be put aside
It would be unwise to still deny the truth and keep focusing on economic developments and unfortunately, usually the economic developments are even the causes of environmental damages
environmental conservation is more essential than economic developments in the aspects of urgency and ranges of influence |
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: Newspapers cannot be environmentally sustained.
Newspapers have no place in the modern media landscape as they are not environmentally friendly, they are a waste of paper when there are many other my efficient ways in which news can be disseminated. For example a single annual subscription to the New York Times roughly generates 520lb of waste which equates to approximately 4.25 trees being cut down per reader per year 2, when you take into account all the other publications that printed throughout the world this equates to a lot of wastage of increasingly scarce natural resources which could be avoided. Using digital tools to distribute news is more efficient as you only use resources when the content is actually required rather than the print media method in which the product is printed when it may not be necessarily purchased and consumed.
1 ID2 (2011) Facts about Paper and Paper Waste. [online] [accessed 18th June 2011]
Candidate 1: "It is true that newspapers cannot adapt as quickly as other types of media to breaking news events, however there are advantages to having slower news. Reporting news events immediately as they happen often leads to speculation as the bigger picture is often unknown by the journalists, therefore having time to digest the given event can allow for more accurate and detailed reporting rather than broadcasting facts which may not be immediately confirmable, a longer time before publication then is likely to result in more accurate, less speculative information. For example many TV news outlets were reporting, when the first plane to hit the World Trade Center on the 11th September, that it was an unfortunate accident. It of course later emerged to be the work of terrorists."
Candidate 2: "The internet edits what you can see without your knowledge
When you purchase a newspaper you know what biases they may contain, getting news online can be more troublesome as services such as Google and Facebook use algorithms which personalize content for you based on your interest. This creates what is known as a “filter bubble”1 whereby online services filter out news which may not be of normal interest to the reader, the problem with this is that it is often done without the user being aware of it, which clearly raises issues of trust.
1 Praiser, E. (2011) Beware Online 'Filter Bubbles' [online] [accessed 15th June 2011]"
Candidate 3: "Newspapers are a more trustworthy source of information than independent bloggers
Online anyone can launch a blog and start publishing, these articles could potentially be false, badly-researched or overly bias to name but a few issues, this raises the question of quality control of information online and its trustworthiness. For example a blog purportedly written by a gay woman in Damascus trying to avoid state persecution over her sexuality turned out to be a hoax, the identity of the blogger turned out to be straight 40 year old US man living in Edinburgh. 1
As newspapers are most often subject to regulations regarding what they print as well as being subject to market forces it is on the whole unlikely that they will publish something that is factually inaccurate, at least not with intent. Journalists working at newspapers are well trained and more often than not sign up to voluntary ethic codes in order to be accepted as trustworthy sources 2. Bloggers on the other hand can publish without any formal training and for the most part stay anonymous, which could lead to falsehoods being spread. Bloggers are often described as “parasitic,” since they criticize “old media,” whilst simultaneously relying upon it for the basis of their factual information. Yet Bloggers do not tend to be the groups funding news reporters across the world 3.
1. BBC. (2011) Syria Gay Girl in Damascus Blog a Hoax By a US Man. [online] [accessed 15th June 2011]
2.Pew Research Center, 2011
3. Murley, B and Roberts, C. (2005) Biting the Hand that Feeds: Blogs and second-level agenda setting. In: Convergence Conference. BYU (Brigham Young University), 2005."
Candidate 4: "Newspapers provide higher quality journalism than other media
As newspapers are a slow medium, having a daily output most typically, they can produce better quality material than other news sources which strive for immediacy. Professional journalists and experts have time to consider the issues and write well structured, coherent and highly informed pieces which other types of media cannot compete with. A demonstration of the high quality of journalism found in newspapers can be seen in the fact that quite often newspapers set the news agenda for the rest of the day for other media outlets 1. Perhaps most importantly, modern graduates of schools of journalism still tend to favour working for newspapers as their long term career ambition. This is because the working conditions tend to be far superior, as is the regularity of payment and job security.
Those blogging in the online media note their treatment as second-class outlets, long hours and poor pay. The best and the brightest head to newspapers 2
1 Economist, (2006) Who killed the newspaper? [online] [accessed 27th July 2011]"
Candidate 5: "This argument overstates the situation. Newspapers are less profitable than they were at their peak, but newspapers have been affected by other media ever since the invention of the radio. Much of the evidence the proposition has raised focuses on the Western World. According to the World Association of Newspapers, more newspapers are being published than at any time previously. There are strong growth markets in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. The Middle East and Africa also sustain strong markets, though there is less growth 1.
Furthermore, Newspaper advertising is an effective revenue source. Advertisements in the traditional print tend to get more attention from readers than on the internet, because people read papers more intently.
Finally, some newspapers are actively engaging with the internet by charging for premium content to their services. Even if they lose some customers, this is made up by a net increase in revenue2.
1 World Association of Newspapers (2010) World Press Trends: Advertising Revenues To Increase, Circulation Relatively Stable. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011]
2 Columbia Journalism Review, (2009) Print Newspapers Still Dominate Readers' Attention. [online] [Accessed 2nd September 2011]"
Candidate 6: "The positive side of a newspaper IS the fact you have a vast array of topics, which you would not usually consume. It broadens the mind as you may often come across stories you never usually take notice of. This opens up a whole new world of interest, whereas if people are given the role of editor they would most likely simply choose to read what already interests them and their channels of perception will become narrower. In addition to this, newspapers are not necessarily linear. They do not have to be read in a linear fashion, people can choose which stories they wish to read and reject those they do not. Newspapers are far more flexible than they are generally portrayed 1. Modern newspapers have adapted their design to increase their consumption by the public.
One good example of this is the change in size of many British newspapers, from broadsheet to tabloid 2.
1. Daily Beast, 2009
2. BBC, 2011"
Candidate 7: "Newspapers offer a better reading experience than digital alternatives
The experience of reading from a newspaper is a far better user experience than reading from a screen, reading from a screen for long periods of time is not only bad for the eyes but quite often becomes uncomfortable. A newspaper however requires natural light to be read and therefore is not as harsh on the eyes. It could also be suggested that people actually prefer the tactile physical experience of a newspaper or book over holding an electronic device, a poll taken on the Guardian 1 website found that 76.1% preferred books, i.e, a physical experience, over a digital one.
Video and audio-based advertisements placed online around the text can also disrupt the reading process, a problem, which does not afflict newspapers.
1 Guardian (2008) E-books or Real Books? [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]"
Candidate 8: "The balance of analysis and relevancy is better struck by newspapers
The argument that internet news tends to offer small passages of text compared to newspapers is to be liberal with the truth, due to the vast nature of the internet it offers a variety of styles and is arguably more likely to provide longer passages than newspapers as there is not space restriction as there is with newspapers which can only be a certain size, due to advertisements and printing agreements.
With the ability to both search for and easily share content via social networks, the argument that newspapers are better as they prevent information overload feels weak because there are many ways in which content can be filtered to ensure that both the news you actually want and the style and perspective you prefer can be easily accessed."
Candidate 9: "Newspapers do still have a place in the modern media landscape; the environmental argument against them is flawed, for example the Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group (NNIEAG) state that: “Recycled paper made up 77.4% of the raw material for UK newspapers in 2010” 1 so the claim regarding the amount of waste newspapers generate is not actually as high as is being suggested.
What the argument also neglects to state is that electronic media is not entirely environmentally friendly in itself, much of the power required not only by personal digital devices but also the infrastructure needed to keep it working does not on the whole come from renewable sources, whereas printed media does makes greater use of environmentally friendly sources for its production. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers states that: “Forestry, paper and packaging are among the most sustainable industries in existence.'” 2
1 NNIEAG (2011) Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group Homepage. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]
2 Two Sides (2011) Print and Paper is a Wasteful Product. [online] [accessed 16th June 2011]"
| Newspapers do still have a place in the modern media landscape; the environmental argument against them is flawed, for example the Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group (NNIEAG) state that: “Recycled paper made up 77.4% of the raw material for UK newspapers in 2010” 1 so the claim regarding the amount of waste newspapers generate is not actually as high as is being suggested.
What the argument also neglects to state is that electronic media is not entirely environmentally friendly in itself, much of the power required not only by personal digital devices but also the infrastructure needed to keep it working does not on the whole come from renewable sources, whereas printed media does makes greater use of environmentally friendly sources for its production. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers states that: “Forestry, paper and packaging are among the most sustainable industries in existence.'” 2
1 NNIEAG (2011) Newsprint and Newspaper Industry Environmental Action Group Homepage. [online] [accessed 13th June 2011]
2 Two Sides (2011) Print and Paper is a Wasteful Product. [online] [accessed 16th June 2011]
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: ...to me, if nothing was created, then it was just here, for eternity. The material for the Big Bang was always sitting somewhere, everything the universe is made of would always have been here. If the material that everything is made of was always there, why couldn't God have always been there?
Response: Actually it wasn\'t sitting somewhere since there was no "where" to "sit" and "always" and "eternity" have no meaning outside of time and no "time" existed prior to the "Big Bang", maybe. | 0.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: Redrawing could be democratic
A redrawing of borders would allow for democratic participation in the building of new African states. There would have to be plebiscites in local areas to determine where borders should run and extensive consultation so that the borders are drawn based on the wishes of the people this time. The opposite of what happens at the moment. For example much of the Bakassi homeland was ceded by Nigeria to Cameroon as a result of an International Court of Justice ruling on the colonial border and many people are asking Nigeria to resettle them as they don’t share Cameroon’s culture. [1] Clearly the people would surely much prefer to have their destiny in their own hands than letting the borders be settled by an international court pouring over 19th century maps. [2]
[1] Chinwo, 2012
[2] Fisher, 2012
Candidate 1: "A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter [1] ; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up.
[1] Ratner, 1996, p.591"
Candidate 2: "Changing borders won’t erase the wrong – it happened and that should be recognised. Borders are simply one by-product and if there are individual borders that are particularly problematic then they might need to be redrawn but there should not be a comprehensive change. To do so might simply create a new wrong with thousands of conflicts over where borders should run."
Candidate 3: "Would create odd borders.
Unfortunately ethnic groups don’t all live in a block with clear dividing lines between them and the neighbouring group. Borders reflecting ethnicities will be squiggly. Often there will be enclaves. Even enclaves may not be enough to get everybody from each ethnicity in the ‘right’ nation. This is shown in the former Yugoslavia where when a nation for Kosovars was created Serbs were suddenly on the wrong side of the border.
This is the problem with not going based upon administrative borders. The question is immediately raised; how finely grained should the border be calibrated? A border cannot be moved to suit every individual."
Candidate 4: "That such a move will reduce conflict relies on a lot of assumptions; most notably that the changes won’t spark a lot of new conflicts. Territory is the biggest source of violent conflicts among states and this will create a large number of new such conflicts. When there is a response 76.6% of the time it will be military when territory is in dispute compared to 49% when something else is the cause, and such disputes are three times as likely to escalate to war (7.3% to 2.5%). [1] The redrawing process would also mean suffering as states attempt to pre-empt new borders by moving those of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as insurgencies are stepped up. The Abyei area of Sudan shows what is likely to happen; it was to have a referendum to decide whether to join the North or South but the north occupied the region before it could be carried out. [2]
[1] Hensel, 1998, pp.20-1
[2] Copnall, 2011"
Candidate 5: "Violates current states sovereignty
One of the core principles of sovereignty is that of territorial integrity. In the process of decolonisation this was expressed through the principle of uti possidetis, that the administrative divisions of the previous state should form the borders the new states so as to prevent gaps in sovereignty and the conflict that would create. [1] The OAU in 1964 went so far as to solemnly declare “that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.” [2] Any alteration to borders would be attacking this principle. No African state is going to accept a change that is likely to redraw many of their borders, open disputes with neighbours and possibly create new states.
[1] Shaw, 1997, p.356
[2] OAU, 1964"
Candidate 6: "Encourages Secessionism
There are at least 834 different ethnicities in Africa [1] and could be as many as 3315. [2] If the ethnicities along the borders are being allowed to choose where they belong then every other ethnicity should, anything else is inconsistent. This is necessary to solve long running campaigns for independence such as by Western Sahara where the people would not want to have to choose between Morocco and Mauritania. [3] On the other hand if only groups which are already in revolt are asked whether they wish independence then such a proposal is simply hypocritical failing to take into account that groups that have been non-violent may also wish independence.
[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.1
[2] Wentzel, 2013
[3] BBC News, 2013"
Candidate 7: "First changing borders encouraging development relies on the assumption that there won’t be conflict. Second if independence movements gain independence then there will be a lot more international borders and the barriers to trade these impose. Finally we need to think about this the other way around; when there are ethnic groups on both sides of the trade they are encouraging and facilitating trade between the two states – this is something to be encouraged not changed. Having the same ethnicity on both sides of the border works in the same way as having emigration in encouraging trade. Because of networks overlapping between the two countries trade will increase. In Spain for example doubling the number of immigrants leads to an increase in exports to the immigrant’s country of origin by 10%. [1] Economic development is not always stifled at borders; two of the four Nigerian states with GDP per capita of over 2000NGN are on the border with Benin. [2]
[1] Peri, 2010
[2] AlifArabia, 2013"
Candidate 8: "Plebiscites and consultation across the whole of Africa. The project would take years or decades to come up with agreed upon borders. Small areas state might wish to be ceded to a neighbouring state when those closer don’t creating enclaves and exclaves [1] as well as a recipe for conflict.
[1] Exclave.eu"
Candidate 9: "Damages dreams of African unity
The African Union Constitutive Act has as an objective to “achieve greater unity and solidarity”. This is something that is damaged by making borders open to question. Borders at the moment are a settle but redrawing borders will open up disputes between African countries as every state will fear losing valuable pieces of territory. It will make that the primary international issue for decades setting back cooperation on peacekeeping or a common market.
If African unity is the ultimate objective then borders should not matter."
| Plebiscites and consultation across the whole of Africa. The project would take years or decades to come up with agreed upon borders. Small areas state might wish to be ceded to a neighbouring state when those closer don’t creating enclaves and exclaves [1] as well as a recipe for conflict.
[1] Exclave.eu
|
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: people say letting the younger generation shielding the elderly is impossible
Proposition2: letting the younger generation get out there, do their thing, shielding the elderly if they want to be shielded | Default Conflict |
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: Whether athletes and singers are overpaid?
Some people believe that professional athletes and entertainers are paid reasonable salaries, which can be up to millions of dollars each year. However, that is not equal to their actual contributions to the society. I believe that their salary at a lower level would be more appropriate compared with other peoples in scientific or social, economic fields.
First of all, some people claim that athletes and singers deserve their current salary because they have an exceptional ability that other people do not own. For example, hardly anyone could play basketball as skillfully as Michael Jordan - a legendary former American player who won several times in the NBA championship. They also point out that these people have to undergo painstaking and industrious training, let alone participate in a great number of contests to be recognized and prove themselves. In addition, although there are many singers and athletes, few of whom could rise to fame and victory ultimately. Overcoming all these obstacles, they should be paid a great deal of money for their extraordinary efforts.
However, their talents should not be overrated. Other people say that singers and athletes, in fact, contribute insignificantly to the development of the society. It is assumed the amazing performances they give to the audiences are only valuable in aesthetic and entertaining terms. While scientists invent machines serving daily lives, doctors take care of patients and cure their diseases and policemen help to ensure the safety and stability of the nation, singers and athletes do not play a helpful part in improving the material life. They commit themselves to promoting relaxation and enjoyment for the audience. Indeed, their contribution is less important than those from doctors or scientists, albeit necessary. Hence, their privilege of salary seems groundless, while the main work forces receive modest salaries which only enable them to afford bare necessities.
From all analysis suggested above, professional athletes and singers are overpaid in terms of their contributions. I think that there should be a modification in the salary of professional singers and athletes to balance with those of people in other fields, namely science and society, who are the driving forces for the prosperity of the nation.
Argumentative components: their salary at a lower level would be more appropriate compared with other peoples in scientific or social, economic fields
professional athletes and singers are overpaid in terms of their contributions
they have an exceptional ability that other people do not own
hardly anyone could play basketball as skillfully as Michael Jordan - a legendary former American player who won several times in the NBA championship
They also point out that these people have to undergo painstaking and industrious training, let alone participate in a great number of contests to be recognized and prove themselves
there are many singers and athletes, few of whom could rise to fame and victory ultimately
Overcoming all these obstacles, they should be paid a great deal of money for their extraordinary efforts
athletes and singers deserve their current salary
singers and athletes, in fact, contribute insignificantly to the development of the society
It is assumed the amazing performances they give to the audiences are only valuable in aesthetic and entertaining terms
While scientists invent machines serving daily lives, doctors take care of patients and cure their diseases and policemen help to ensure the safety and stability of the nation, singers and athletes do not play a helpful part in improving the material life
They commit themselves to promoting relaxation and enjoyment for the audience
their contribution is less important than those from doctors or scientists, albeit necessary
their privilege of salary seems groundless, while the main work forces receive modest salaries which only enable them to afford bare necessities | Major claims:
their salary at a lower level would be more appropriate compared with other peoples in scientific or social, economic fields
professional athletes and singers are overpaid in terms of their contributions
Claims:
their salary at a lower level would be more appropriate compared with other peoples in scientific or social, economic fields
professional athletes and singers are overpaid in terms of their contributions
athletes and singers deserve their current salary
their privilege of salary seems groundless, while the main work forces receive modest salaries which only enable them to afford bare necessities
Premises:
they have an exceptional ability that other people do not own
hardly anyone could play basketball as skillfully as Michael Jordan - a legendary former American player who won several times in the NBA championship
They also point out that these people have to undergo painstaking and industrious training, let alone participate in a great number of contests to be recognized and prove themselves
there are many singers and athletes, few of whom could rise to fame and victory ultimately
Overcoming all these obstacles, they should be paid a great deal of money for their extraordinary efforts
singers and athletes, in fact, contribute insignificantly to the development of the society
It is assumed the amazing performances they give to the audiences are only valuable in aesthetic and entertaining terms
While scientists invent machines serving daily lives, doctors take care of patients and cure their diseases and policemen help to ensure the safety and stability of the nation, singers and athletes do not play a helpful part in improving the material life
They commit themselves to promoting relaxation and enjoyment for the audience
their contribution is less important than those from doctors or scientists, albeit necessary |
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: Since posts are disappearing anyway, let me add a new one.\nNow we all know that I am made in the image and likeness of God and since God is perfect, that image and likeness must also be, as a logical consequence, perfect. To state less would mean that God is not perfect. So if I am the image and likeness of God, then either I am perfect or God is not.
Response: think of it as a photocopy of a check for a million dollars. yes the copy is in the image and likeness of the original check, but it is not the check. you cannot cash the photocopy, regardless of how accurate the copy is, it is not the check, only an image of it. that doesn\'t mean anything is "wrong" with the original, and it doesnt mean that the copy has to have all the properties and function of the original. its just an image | 3.5 |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | After seven years of relative peace, one of the world’s most oil-rich regions is once again under siege by militants. And though Nigeria is well-acquainted with violence on its southern shores, the group behind a new wave of attacks — the Niger Delta Avengers — is shrouded in mystery and sabotaging one of the world’s biggest oil producers. The attacks present a serious challenge for President Muhammadu Buhari, who entered office last year in the midst of a global oil price downturn that has plunged Nigeria into economic crisis and stoked runaway inflation. Now, assaults by the Avengers have helped send the country’s crude output to its lowest level in decades. Nigeria is home to Africa’s largest economy and one of the world’s biggest populations. Before this year’s supply disruptions, the OPEC member was also the continent’s top crude producer. The oil industry accounts for about 70 percent of government revenue. The Niger Delta Avengers are in the business of destroying oil infrastructure — working in teams, carrying small arms and explosives, blowing up pipelines and sabotaging facilities — taking advantage of the Delta’s complex, creek-filled terrain to stay one step ahead of the Nigerian soldiers chasing them. They’re driven by economic and environmental grievances, and until those issues are addressed, the Delta will remain in a cycle of sabotage, experts told CNBC. And Nigeria’s oil output will remain under pressure. ‘Very effective’ The Avengers claim on their website to be young, educated and well-traveled. They say they are better armed and more civilized than past militants. One thing’s for sure: They are making an impact. Nigerian Oil Minister Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu this week said the country’s oil production has fallen by 800,000 barrels per day — to 1.4 million barrels per day — due to attacks on the nation’s infrastructure, local news reported, many or perhaps most of them at the hands of the Avengers. | one of the world’s most oil-rich regions is once again under siege by militants Niger Delta Avengers sabotaging one of the world’s biggest oil producers. The attacks present a serious challenge for President Muhammadu Buhari, who entered office last year in the midst of a global oil price downturn that has plunged Nigeria into economic crisis and stoked runaway inflation. Avengers have helped send the country’s crude output to its lowest level in decades Before this year’s supply disruptions, the OPEC member was also the continent’s top crude producer. The oil industry accounts for about 70 percent of government revenue Niger Delta Avengers are in the business of destroying oil infrastructure — working in teams, carrying small arms and explosives, blowing up pipelines and sabotaging facilities — Nigeria’s oil output will remain under pressure. ‘Very effective’ say they are better armed and more civilized than past militant making an impact. Nigerian Oil Minister Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu this week said the country’s oil production has fallen by 800,000 barrels per day — to 1.4 million barrels per day — due to attacks on the nation’s infrastructure most of them at the hands of the Avengers |
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: Reasons why travelers visit Museums?
Many people like to visit museums when they travel to new places, other people don't like to visit museums. I personaly tend to visit museums when I'm in a new place because it's good for me know about the culture, tradition and history of other places.
The first reason why people are willing to visit museums when they travel to a new territory is that museums provide a tremendous amount of information about different aspects of the history and culture of that place, as I said back. And also taking the chance for making friends. Visit museums can bring you the opportunity to establish relations and knowledge to participate in conversations. And that kind of knowledge speaks very highly of you.
However, other people visit museums are the most boring expirience of a trip. My cousin Pedro literaly hates to visit museums but he really enjoyed his visit to the famous London - Madame Tussaud museum, it was kind of art entertainment but also that visit helped him to understand the artist works, and in addition he started to respect and admire other types of arts that offers in other museums.
In coclusion, the museums are a visual source to know the history, tradition and culture of any place in the world. I think it's fun and educational.
Argumentative components: I personaly tend to visit museums when I'm in a new place
it's good for me know about the culture, tradition and history of other places
the museums are a visual source to know the history, tradition and culture of any place in the world
it's fun and educational
museums provide a tremendous amount of information about different aspects of the history and culture of that place
And also taking the chance for making friends
Visit museums can bring you the opportunity to establish relations and knowledge to participate in conversations
And that kind of knowledge speaks very highly of you
other people visit museums are the most boring expirience of a trip
My cousin Pedro literaly hates to visit museums but he really enjoyed his visit to the famous London - Madame Tussaud museum, it was kind of art entertainment but also that visit helped him to understand the artist works, and in addition he started to respect and admire other types of arts that offers in other museums | Major claims:
I personaly tend to visit museums when I'm in a new place
it's fun and educational
Claims:
I personaly tend to visit museums when I'm in a new place
it's good for me know about the culture, tradition and history of other places
the museums are a visual source to know the history, tradition and culture of any place in the world
it's fun and educational
museums provide a tremendous amount of information about different aspects of the history and culture of that place
other people visit museums are the most boring expirience of a trip
Premises:
And also taking the chance for making friends
Visit museums can bring you the opportunity to establish relations and knowledge to participate in conversations
And that kind of knowledge speaks very highly of you
My cousin Pedro literaly hates to visit museums but he really enjoyed his visit to the famous London - Madame Tussaud museum, it was kind of art entertainment but also that visit helped him to understand the artist works, and in addition he started to respect and admire other types of arts that offers in other museums |
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: Beneficial for the player
Undoubtedly, one of the most important things for a professional sportsperson is to have a long, healthy and fulfilling career. No matter what a sportspersons motivation is, whether it is the pleasure from winning or the money a player always needs to be in top form. Playing on the international level helps athletes improve themselves.
First of all, no matter of sport, the level of the sport is much more intense when it is international, as obviously, the best players are taking part in it. Santos vs Boca Juniors have always been very thrilling football matches, but none of them compare with the matches between Brazil and Argentina. If you, as an athlete, are forced to play in a much more competitive environment, then you have to bring your A-game to the pitch on every single occasion as the stakes are high every single time. In time, this improves skills and develops capabilities, as you are challenged on regular basis.
Second of all, when it comes to team sports a lot of scouts are watching internationals in the hopes of spotting new potential talents for big teams. This can be a very good opportunity for players to get noticed and to receive the credit they deserve. For example Luis Suarez transferred to Liverpool for £22.8 million in January 2011 shortly after the 2010 world cup,(1) while Alex Furgeson noted on having bought Javier Hernández ”If we had waited until after the World Cup we would have had to pay maybe three times the price”(2). If they fail to seize the opportunity, players are much more likely to remain unnoticed and unknown outside their own country. It is in their interest to be in the spotlight for the greatest amount of time, and there is no bigger stage than international competitions.
(1) Metro, ‘Luis Suarez Liverpool transfer agreed after Ajax accept £22.8m offer, 28 January 2011, http://metro.co.uk/2011/01/28/luis-suarez-liverpool-transfer-agreed-after-ajax-accept-22-8m-offer-635504/
(2) Field, Dominic, ‘Javier Hernández lifts Manchester United spirits after week of turmoil’, The Guardian, 25 October 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/oct/25/javier-hernandez-manchester-united
Candidate 1: "Benefits to the nation
It is not just the player or athlete who benefits from taking part in international competitions but the nation as well. Every nation wants to do well in international sporting completions and every national wants their nation to do well internationally. Every country wants all of their best sportspeople to take part so that they have as much success as possible. This is partially about prestige; Jamaica is perhaps best known worldwide at the moment as a result of the fame of Usain Bolt and other successful sprinters, if it was not known for this it might instead be known for its gang wars and murder which is not what a country wants people to think of when their country is mentioned. (1)
But it is also about the economy. Countries that do well in international competitions may get an economic boost as a result. Economists suggested that winning the World Cup could have a positive impact of between 0.25 and 0.5%, which if it is in the context of near zero growth can be a big impact. This is a result of the feel-good factor from the victory. And we must not forget that feel-good factor itself; wining international competitions, or even just individual events lifts the mood of the country.
And if a country is successful in a sport then that sport provides an opportunity to bring social benefits through social programs to reduce violence or campaigns such as that against racism.(2) Success is however something which is much more likely if a country is able to field its best athletes and players internationally.
(1) Observer Crime Reporter, ‘Murders soar’, Jamaica Observer, 24 September 2013, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Murders-soar_15121749
(2) The Economist, ‘Crime in Mexico: Out of sight, not out of mind’, 19 October 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21588071-having-decided-play-down-fight-against-drug-kingpins-enrique-pe-nieto-has-yet-come"
Candidate 2: "How well the finances of sports are doing has little relevance to the international game. Indeed it creates the potential problem that as club, or domestic level competition grows more lucrative so sportspeople may feel that they have less need of taking part internationally.
Even if there are currently few who reject a call up this is something that will vary from nation to nation, sport to sport, and time to time. Any national sporting association that faces a crisis that threatens to disrupt their capability of meeting international competition should have the ability to make it compulsory for their best players to represent their country. Thus when Cameroon’s players engaged in strike action it was not just one player which the team could do without but the whole team who did so.(1)
Moreover, even if lower quality players can be substitutes the change would still influence the overall face of the competition and the team’s chances. Having the best possible players, even if some are there by compulsion increases competition to be selected. This puts more pressure on everyone to perform. Every player who will come to the national team can be a valuable asset for it, either if he plays or if he “warms up” the bench.
(1) Associated Press, ‘Cameroon squad go on strike in row over appearance bonuses’, theguardian.com, 15 November 2011, http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/nov/15/cameroon-squad-strike-row-algeria"
Candidate 3: "The sole thing that one must remember when judging this problem is that individuals differ from one another. Even in the world of sports, although most of the athletes are hard-working, determined and ambitious people, they have different opinions, different personalities and different views over what success means. This is exactly why we cannot generalize the recipe for an ideal life. There is no “one size fits all”.
For some players, it’s all about the competition, that thrill and excitement that you feel when playing a match, while for others the whole sporting environment is just a way of providing for their families, them not enjoying the sport per se, but rather the benefits is brings. As a result, it is of crucial importance to let people decide by their own if they want to participate in international competition. The majority will want to represent their countries, but some don’t. What should be prioritized in this instance is the happiness of the individual, and as they know best in what makes them happy, we must let the athletes chose if they want to represent their countries on a national level or not. For example, Samuel Eto’o refused to play for Cameroon in a friendly match because the Cameroonian Football Association didn’t pay his fee for previous international matches. As a result, he prioritized his personal time over exhausting himself in matches that didn’t bring him any sort of advantages. (1) His decision should be respected.
(1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports August 27, 2012 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1313251-samuel-etoo-refuses-to-play-for-cameroon-national-team-again"
Candidate 4: "It should not be dependent on one man or one woman to carry the weight of the nation upon their shoulders. Winning the world cup should not be about just whether an individual plays or not but about the team. Even in the Olympics one individual’s performance makes little difference in most cases to the whole of the team.
Good results may lift a nation but it is wrong to suggest that this should mean that everyone who is called on to represent their nation should have to answer that call. It is up to the coaches and managers to make the best use of the men and women they do have.
Moreover if a country is relying on one individual then they are almost certainly putting too much pressure on them. Instead the country needs to focus on broadening the base of the team by finding more talent so that no one individual is irreplaceable. It should be remembered that individuals are far more often unable to take part in international competition as a result of injury or other reasons rather than a refusal to represent their country."
Candidate 5: "Liberty
Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.
We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)
The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.
(1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011, http://www.scrumqueens.com/news/canada-players-refuse-pay-play"
Candidate 6: "There is no need for compulsion
There is an old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. In order for this proposal to be taken into consideration, a problem regarding the world of sports must be identified.
Fortunately for sports, it works like a charm. In a great many sports revenues are going up, television rights are being sold for higher prices than ever before and more and more children are enrolling in sporting activities. Despite the global economic slowdown, sports revenues worldwide should grow by about 3.7 percent to $145.3 billion by 2015, according to a research report.(1) The current system works and there is no need to change it.
Moreover, if we were to introduce this coercive measure, there would be numerous disadvantages without significant benefits. It would make no sense to create purposeless tensions between individuals and sporting federations. It is even more absurd considering that competitions and sporting events wouldn't benefit at all. This is because almost all top sportspeople accept the request to represent their country, and indeed see it as an honour and privilege.
Therefore, it would create no advantages regarding the level of the game or increase the spectacle.
(1) Stutchbury, Greg, “Sports Industry Expected To Continue Steady Growth Despite Economic Woes: Report” , Huffington Post, 12 September 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/sports-industry-expected-grow-2015-report_n_1138706.html"
Candidate 7: "It is true that freedom is one of the core principles of society, but it is neither an absolute value, nor one which isn’t legitimate to confine at some moments. This coercive measure isn’t very time or energy intensive. In general, international competitions are pretty scarce, once every two or four years, and they last only for a couple of weeks. Therefore, the athletes have total freedom over their career, as coming to a championship once in a while won’t affect it.
In addition, the sportsmen shouldn’t be looking at this decision judging solely by their interests. The decision-making process should take more factors into consideration. In a significant number of cases, there is reason to believe that the players think only about themselves and don’t think about the help they could give to their team and therefore to the nation. For example, the Cameroonian footballers refused to appear in a friendly against Algeria just because the Federation didn't pay the corresponding bonuses and appearance fees for two games (against Morocco and Sudan).(1) Such examples of selfish behaviour should be discouraged. They shouldn’t prioritize a small sum of money, which they would’ve eventually received, over the fans. Under this curtain of “freedom” we are allowing them to be selfish and always put their needs first. A society where players would give from their own time in order to help achieve a greater goal is a more desirable one.
(1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports, 27 August 2012 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1313251-samuel-etoo-refuses-to-play-for-cameroon-national-team-again"
Candidate 8: "A moral duty to play for your country
It is clear that any individual, no matter his chosen area of expertise needs the appropriate environment to achieve his maximum potential. The people involved in professional sports are no exception. They need coaches to guide them, stadiums in which to practice, sponsorship and funding to allow participation at some competitions. Any person who succeeded in making a career in sports partly owes it to the society he grew up in that provided these facilities and opportunities. Let us not forget that especially in poor areas, most of the sports trainings are done “pro bono” by good Samaritans who want to lend a hand.
Therefore, as other people invested in their development, every sportsman has the moral duty to pass on that help, and also lend a helping hand towards those who weren’t as privileged. Representing the nation is a part of this moral duty to repay that which the country has given. This improves the image of that country and allows it to get the recognition in deserves for bringing up such talented players. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of best paid soccer players in the world and mainly got to where he is due to his talent, determination and countless hours on the pitch. But he was also born in Portugal, where he took advantage of the entire football industry that exists there. If he had been born in Sri Lanka, his talent would have gone unnoticed."
Candidate 9: "No guarantee of success
A man who performs a certain task out voluntarily is guaranteed to solve it better, faster and more efficiently than someone who is forced to do it against his will. Even if these players would come and participate in the training and matches, there is no guarantee that they will give 100%.
Any sportsperson who did not want to appear at the competition is not going to be motivated no matter what it was that meant they did not want to attend. This will be even more the case if the reason was one of fitness, tiredness or form.
The second reason which will add to the lack of dedication from these players is the frustration that they are forced to play against their will. If they cannot change the system, or appeal, then it can only lead to more irritation and indignation. Not a good frame of mind for an international competition. Discord in a team can only lead to failure, as shown by France’s humiliating drop out of the 2010 world cup having not won a game despite having big international stars.(1)
When performance is affected by motivation then there is little coaches or managers can do except take them off the team. They will simply perform less well than more motivated athletes so that they don’t need to take part, so fulfilling their original intent.
(1) Associated Press, ‘Humiliation now complete for France at World Cup’, ESPN, 22 June 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=5316645"
Candidate 10: "There are no grounds on which to claim that these athletes have any sort of moral duty towards the society which raised him, as the society itself benefited from its investment and a moral duty should not arise from the accident of being born into a particular country.
The moral obligation, if it ever existed, is to the club and is fully fulfilled whether they stay at the club they were raised by or if they leave. If they stay, they will help the club win matches, championships and therefore money, which could in turn be used for the development for other young, talented players. If they leave, the club will receive a significant fee for the transfer, money which could again be used for the same purposes. Either way, they will bring significant advantages to the society that raised them, without having to play for the national team."
Candidate 11: "The claim according to which players would willingly play badly in order to get thrown out from the team is not only false, but completely outrageous. There are several points which indicate this.
These are extremely popular and important competitions. In order to get to international level you need to have a very strong character, to value your team mates and cherish the fans. No such player would be willing to throw a match by playing badly. Doing so would hurt the team, fans and nation, and bring widespread criticism.
Throwing a game is also noticeable if there is a significant difference between domestic and international form. Being selected shows good form making it difficult to claim another reason for poor results. Moreover, if they are found out, they have a lot to lose, as their reputation would be destroyed. The Pakistani cricket team scandal involving corruption and match-fixing proves the risks players face when trying to get involved in backstage games and alter the result through poor performance. (1)This damages the athlete’s career, their reputation (even if it is not corrupt) and their financial situation. No one will want someone known for unprofessional behaviour.
(1) Greenwood, Chris, “Bowlers Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Aamer received a year and six months respectively ”, Daily Mail, 4 November 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056982/Pakistan-spot-fixing-players-corrupt-agent-jailed-cricket-betting-scandal.html"
| The sole thing that one must remember when judging this problem is that individuals differ from one another. Even in the world of sports, although most of the athletes are hard-working, determined and ambitious people, they have different opinions, different personalities and different views over what success means. This is exactly why we cannot generalize the recipe for an ideal life. There is no “one size fits all”.
For some players, it’s all about the competition, that thrill and excitement that you feel when playing a match, while for others the whole sporting environment is just a way of providing for their families, them not enjoying the sport per se, but rather the benefits is brings. As a result, it is of crucial importance to let people decide by their own if they want to participate in international competition. The majority will want to represent their countries, but some don’t. What should be prioritized in this instance is the happiness of the individual, and as they know best in what makes them happy, we must let the athletes chose if they want to represent their countries on a national level or not. For example, Samuel Eto’o refused to play for Cameroon in a friendly match because the Cameroonian Football Association didn’t pay his fee for previous international matches. As a result, he prioritized his personal time over exhausting himself in matches that didn’t bring him any sort of advantages. (1) His decision should be respected.
(1) Gama, Karla Villegas, “Samuel Eto'o Refuses to Play for Cameroon National Team Again “, Bleacher Reports August 27, 2012 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1313251-samuel-etoo-refuses-to-play-for-cameroon-national-team-again
|
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: John Swinney : Yes
Proposition: we could see from the examples in other countries how brutal Coronavirus was to the older generation | Agreeing |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "there is only one thing would be beneficial to company, and there is only one way to be an outstanding worker, that is possessing excellent knowledge of this job", argumentative component 2: "This ability is helpful in communicating with other workmates, cooperating with other workers needs this ability, too" | No |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | The few historians who deny the genocide have been paid by the Turkish foreign ministry to support Turkey's denialist narrative. | Many historians agree that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide. |
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? | surrogacy can lead to a whole slew of legal issues | 0.374274534 |
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: A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal
With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide.
Candidate 1: "It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament."
Candidate 2: "The political consequences of the system make the world less safe
Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states."
Candidate 3: "Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits."
Candidate 4: "Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore."
Candidate 5: "Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe."
Candidate 6: "Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:
Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security."
Candidate 7: "The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work
Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely."
| Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe.
|
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 submitted by Rodríguez Morales et al. represents a bibliometric evaluation on Babesia, in order to contribute to understanding this neglected zoonosis and addressing future research and control strategies.
Bibliometric evaluation is an excellent tool to obtain objective information about specific areas of research and support the adoption of strategic decisions.
In detail, this study provides and summaries data on the research activity on Babesia worldwide.
It shows that the main country involved in the research on Babesia is USA, where babesiosis is a notifiable disease since 2011 (CDC) and most human cases have been reported.
Of interest the strong research activity of institutions and countries as Japan and UK, in which Babesia represents a new emerging problem both in animals and humans.
This study highlights the increased research activity on this neglected zoonosis, considered of growing importance in several countries and the need of further studies addressed to preventive and therapeutic aspects.
The manuscript, proposed as a research note, is well structured, the statistical analysis and its interpretation is sufficient, results and discussion appropriate.
To fulfil F1000Research criteria (“Research note … can be reported with one or two illustrations (figures/tables)”), authors could reduce the number of figures/graphs.
I suggest the following minor revisions in the text:
In the Introduction:
- I suggest to add Ixodes spp as tick genera involved in the transmission of Babesia to humans.
Indeed in USA most reported human cases are attributed to B. microti transmitted to people by Ixodes scapularis.
Moreover, most European human cases are caused by B. divergens and B. venatorum , primarly transmitted by Ixodes ricinus 1 .
- The authors should specify that the first case described in Croatia in 1957 by Skaraballo, refers to a “human” case.
- Moreover I suggest adding a sentence regarding the role of animal reservoirs and their distribution that contributes (as the presence of vectors) in the maintenance of the transmission cycle.
In the Methods:
You could clarify which and/or how many countries have been used as keyword for the search pipeline
Figure 6:
In the caption: the citation trends is from Web of Science (as reported in the results), not Scopus. | Structure
Recap
Other
Recap
Recap
Other
Strength
Strength
Todo
Structure
Structure
Todo
Other
Other
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Structure
Weakness |
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: Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.
Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of disputes and distress in society. It also contributes to the psychological problems of the alcohol consumer children. While the problem might not be connected to one individual in society, it is important that laws protect those, who might abuse their rights and with this hurt others.
Currently in the US alone, there is an estimated 6.6 million children under 18, which live in households with at least one alcoholic parent. [1] It was never the fault of these children that others started to drink and harm them. According to psychological studies many of the children coming from alcohol abuse families have problems such as low self-esteem, loneliness, guilt, feelings of helplessness, fears of abandonment, and chronic depression. Children of alcoholics in some cases even feel responsible for the problems of the alcoholic and may think they created the problem. [2]
Alcohol is also a great contributor not only to psychological, but also to physical damage. Many times, alcohol is an easy excuse for domestic abusers. The incidence of domestic abuse in households, where there is alcohol abuse is a lot higher and the abusers name the effects of alcohol as their main cause of violence. [3]
With taking away alcohol we take away the fuel of many of the abusers, thus protecting third involved parties.
[1] Alcohol Information, Alcohol Statistics, http://www.alcohol-information.com/Alcohol_Statistics.html , accessed 08/14/2011
[2] Parsons T., Alcoholism and it’s effects on the Family, AllPsych Journal, published 12/14/2003, http://allpsych.com/journal/alcoholism.html , accessed 08/16/2011
[3] University of Minnesota, Alcohol and Domestic Violence, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/alcohol.htm , accessed 08/17/2011
Candidate 1: "Banning alcohol harms the economy.
Not only would banning alcohol infringe people’s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry.
In 2007, it was a $970 billion global market for alcoholic beverages, experiencing a period of unprecedented change. While about 60 percent of the market was still in the hands of small, local enterprises, truly global players are steadily emerging and creating an even greater market. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy. [1]
A point further on is that currently governments raise large amounts of revenue from taxes and duties payable on alcoholic drinks. To ban alcohol would take away a major source of funding for public services. In addition, the effect of banning alcohol would call for additional policing on a huge scale, if the prohibition were to be enforced effectively. If would create a new class of illegal drug-users, traffickers, and dealers on an unprecedented scale.
[1] Jackson J., Spirited performance, published May 2007, http://www.accenture.com/us-en/outlook/pages/outlook-journal-2007-alcoholic-beverages-industry-report.aspx , accessed 08/17/2011"
Candidate 2: "First of all alcohol abuse (excessive amounts of alcohol) contribute only to a small percentage of all alcohol use in society. Even in Germany, where prices of beer are very low in comparison to other beverages, the data shows, that only 1.7 million (in a country of more than 80 million) use alcohol in a harmful way. [1] So why force people to give up something, just because a minority is not sure how to use it.
Further on, even if it was a concerning amount of people whose health is impacted by alcohol abuse, campaigns and information have very effectively reduced the death rate for cirrhosis. During a 22-year period, death from cirrhosis: dropped 29.8% among black men, 15.3% among white men, 47.9% among black women and 33.3% among white women [2]
[1] Ryan R., The Highs and Lows of Germany's Drinking Culture, published 11/18/2006, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2226609,00.html , accessed 08/18/2011
[2] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAbuse.html , accessed 08/18/2011"
Candidate 3: "Prohibition would be impractical and serve only to create an enormous black market
In comparison to any other drug, alcohol is very easy to produce (hence the great amount of vineyards) and very much engraved in the culture of especially European countries.
Therefore a ban would be very ineffective, as the people would do it due to the ease of producing alcohol and the cultural acceptance. A ban would bring just more deregulation and loss of taxes through the black market.
We might acknowledge that the legal implications will scare away some people from drinking alcohol, but the main part of population will want more. Because there is a strong inelastic demand and the illegal supply will flourish.
This can be seen already with both and illegal drugs. It is also the lesson of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. Smuggled alcohol brought in from much cheaper continental countries will undercut both pubs and law-abiding retailers, and will circumvent the normal regulations which ensure consumer safety, such as proof-of-age or quality controls. In Saudi Arabia, a country with an alcohol ban, the Saudi police had seized over 100,000 bottles of eau-de-cologne with an expired expiration date. The methanol in cologne recently led to the deaths of over 20 people who drank it and many others were blinded. Earlier, over 130,000 bottles were confiscated. [1] Because people wanted alcohol so badly and could not get it. While in Europe there might not be much of poisoning going on, a great amount of alcohol because of the different wine regions. Only Spain has already 2.9 million acres of land devoted entirely to the planting of wine grapes. However, it is only number 3 when it comes to the amount of wine actually produced. [2] So in comparison to the Arabic countries, there is a lot of ground where easily to produce alcohol and therefore making it hard to control.
Worse, criminals will find a market for cheap, home-brewed alcohol, of the kind which kills or blinds hundreds of people a year in countries like Russia. [3] Overall criminality will flourish, with the gang violence associated with Prohibition or the drugs trade.
An alcohol ban has worked mainly in countries where it is very tight tied to religion and to the religious practices. Especially in countries that are secular and more multicultural, the ban would be impossible to enforce. The harms associated with black market alcohol are too great for us to risk introducing this proposal.
[1] Hanson D., Alcohol – Problems and Solutions, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholAbuse.html , accessed 08/18/2011
[2] A Beginners Guide to Spanish Wine, http://www.eventswholesale.com/article/spanish-wine.htm , accessed 08/18/2011
[3] Sodertorns Hogskola, The Alcohol Use in Russia and the Baltic Sea Region, published April 2000, http://webappl.sh.se/C1256C930076231F/0/17B99CCA2C0854EAC1256D130035BA03/$file/12.pdf , accessed 08/18/2011"
Candidate 4: "Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and no other individual.
Since the pleasure gained from alcohol and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress alcohol use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of alcohol abuse."
Candidate 5: "Banning alcohol is a quick fix to a wider societal problem.
By banning alcohol the government is searching for a quick way out of the problem of people excessively drinking, making bad decisions when under the influence of alcohol.
Alcoholism and also drunk driving is a problem in many countries over the world. It has taken governments for over 30 years to decrease the number of drunk driver accidents, to decrease the number of drinkers in certain regions. This is a hard campaign battle, the government has to battle. According to a recent study, by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, campaigns contribute to approximately 13 % of decrease in drinking through time. This is a number with which many governments are not satisfied as they are pouring a lot of money in the campaigns. [1] In Scotland alone, the annual expenditure for the “drink driving campaign was £141000. [2] Because of quite high expenditure on campaigns, countries may see a ban as an easy way out of these expenditures. Therefore for the government it seems maybe reasonable to prevent just all citizens from drinking. With this the government might be saying that the problem is fixed (because no one is allowed to drink alcohol anymore), but mainly it is just superficially solving it.
As people’s mentality has not changed just through a law passing, they have created only more problematic users, they cannot target with campaigns and so do not impact the society. A quick public message that they fixed the superficial problem, while leaving citizens in their misery.
[1] Elder R., Effectiveness of Mass Media Campaigns for Reducing Drinking and Driving and Alcohol-Involved Crashes, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published 2004, http://meagherlab.tamu.edu/M-Meagher/%20Health%20Psyc%20630/Readings%20630/Healthcompro/mass%20media%20drink%2004.pdf , accessed 08/13/2011
[2] Institute of Alcoholic Studies, Economic cost and benefits, http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/economic_costs_benefits.pdf , accessed 08/13/2011"
Candidate 6: "The state should keep alcohol legal in order to maximize citizens’ rights.
Governments are not there to be the mothers of citizens, but should allow people to freely live their lives as long as they do not hurt others.
A government might have the wish to build a society that is obedient, productive and without flaws. This may also mean a society without alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or any other addictive substances. Such a society might have its benefits in a short term, but seen long term it has more unsatisfied individuals.
With drinking alcohol responsibly no one is getting harmed; in many cases not even the individual, as it is actually beneficial for the health. A glass of wine per day is good for decreasing the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists say. [1]
So if someone in society has decided that it is good for them for whatever reason possible to use a substance that impacts only them, the state should not prevent them from doing so. This is because the society has been made from the different individuals, which lead different lifestyles and therefore have very opposing opinions views on what freedom is. A society that is free and where individuals are happy is a society where individuals engage more and also give more back to the society. So if alcohol will make the people happy and then more productive, we should maintain status quo.
[1] Bauer J., Is wine good for you ?, published 6/4/2008, http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478144/ns/today-today_health/t/wine-good-you/ , accessed 08/14/2011"
Candidate 7: "Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface.
A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück (Germany) explains that individuals who are the cause of domestic violence usually have very little or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of their development. It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of third party harm. [1] Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social and abuse would happen anyway, even without alcohol. [2]
Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.
[1] European Council of Europen - Human Rights, Explaining the inclination to use violence against women, October 1999, http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/66l-en_vio.htm , accessed 08/17/2011
[2] Hanson D., Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html , accessed 08/17/2011"
| Human beings are naturally inclined towards violence and conflict. Sex and violence are primal parts of our genetic make-up and we do not need alcohol to bring them to the surface.
A study conducted by the University of Osnabrück (Germany) explains that individuals who are the cause of domestic violence usually have very little or no capacity for empathy from the early stages of their development. It states, that the domestic violence is deeply rooted in their psychology. Thus, nothing to do with alcohol as the cause of third party harm. [1] Alcohol, at worst, may slightly exaggerate these tendencies - but that makes it the occasion not the underlying cause of violent crimes. The underlying causes are biological and social and abuse would happen anyway, even without alcohol. [2]
Making rape and murder illegal does not eradicate rape and murder, so it is unlikely that making drinking alcohol illegal will do so either.
[1] European Council of Europen - Human Rights, Explaining the inclination to use violence against women, October 1999, http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-viol/66l-en_vio.htm , accessed 08/17/2011
[2] Hanson D., Drinking Alcohol and Domestic Abuse, State University of New York, http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html , accessed 08/17/2011
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: True. It (scientific output) is on the EAM side, with none of it on the darwinist pseudo-science religion, nor on the side of the xtianist bible-worshiping religion.
Response: And you wondered why I referred to the last issue of Evolution.\nLet\'s look at the output in a single recent copy of Biology Letters that I was checking out this morning. Not all of it deals with evolutionary questions being addressed by evolutionary biologists, but by far the majority meets that qualification.\nBiology Letters, The Royal Society, Volume 2, issue 4 (December 22, 2006)\n1) The influence of social affiliation on individual vocal signatures of northern resident killer whales ( Orcinus orca). Nousek, Anna E.; Slater, Peter J.B.; Wang, Chao; Miller, Patrick J.O., p. 481 \xe2\x80\x93 484\n2) Rotational feeding in caecilians: putting a spin on the evolution of cranial design. Measey, G. John ; Herrel, Anthony, p. 485 \xe2\x80\x93 487\n3) Avian predators attack aposematic prey more forcefully when they are part of an aggregation. Skelhorn, John ; Ruxton, Graeme D., p. 488 \xe2\x80\x93 490\n4) Sex-role reversed nuptial feeding reduces male kleptoparasitism of females in Zeus bugs (Heteroptera; Veliidae). Arnqvist, G\xc3\xb6ran ; Jones, Ther\xc3\xa9sa M. ; Elgar, Mark A., p. 491 \xe2\x80\x93 493\n5) Anatomical basis for camouflaged polarized light communication in squid. M\xc3\xa4thger, Lydia M. ; Hanlon, Roger T. , p. 494 \xe2\x80\x93 496\n6) A killer whale social network is vulnerable to targeted removals. Williams, Rob ; Lusseau, David, p. 497 \xe2\x80\x93 500\n7) Parent\xe2\x80\x93offspring conflict and motivational control of brooding in an amphipod (Crustacea). Dick, Jaimie T.A. ; Elwood, Robert W., p. 501 \xe2\x80\x93 504\n8) Chimpanzee and felid diet composition is influenced by prey brain size, Shultz, Susanne ; Dunbar, R.I.M., p. 505 \xe2\x80\x93 508\n9) Killer whales are capable of vocal learning. Foote, Andrew D. ; Griffin, Rachael M. ; Howitt, David ; et al., p. 509 \xe2\x80\x93 512\n10) Paternity loss in contrasting mammalian societies. Clutton-Brock, T.H. ; Isvaran, K., p. 513 \xe2\x80\x93 516\n11) Consistent annual schedules in a migratory shorebird. Battley, Phil F., p. 517 \xe2\x80\x93 520\n12) Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Zuk, Marlene ; Rotenberry, John T. ; Tinghitella, Robin M., p. 521 \xe2\x80\x93 524\n13) The courtship-inhibiting pheromone is ignored by female-deprived gregarious desert locust males. Seidelmann, Karsten, p. 525 \xe2\x80\x93 527\n14) Connecting the dots: an invariant migration corridor links the Holocene to the present. Berger, Joel ; Cain, Steven L. ; Berger, Kim Murray, p. 528 \xe2\x80\x93 531\n15) Niche breadth and geographical range: ecological compensation for geographical rarity in rainforest frogs. Williams, Yvette M. ; Williams, Stephen E. ; Alford, Ross A. ; et al., p. 532 \xe2\x80\x93 535\n16) Sexual selection and its effect on the fixation of an asexual clone. Salath\xc3\xa9, Marcel, p. 536 \xe2\x80\x93 538\n17) Adaptive divergence of scaling relationships mediates the arms race between a weevil and its host plant. Toju, Hirokazu ; Sota, Teiji, p. 539 \xe2\x80\x93 542\n18) Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. Ericson, Per G. P.; Anderson, Cajsa L. ; Britton, Tom ; et al., p. 543 \xe2\x80\x93 547\n19) On the origin of the Synodontis catfish species flock from Lake Tanganyika. Day, Julia J. ; Wilkinson, Mark, p. 548 \xe2\x80\x93 552\n20) Mate choice assays and mating propensity differences in natural yeast populations. Murphy, Helen A. ; Kuehne, Heidi A. ; Francis, Chantal A. ; Sniegowski, Paul D., p. 553 \xe2\x80\x93 556\n21) Metabolic costs of brain size evolution. Isler, Karin ; van Schaik, Carel P., p. 557 \xe2\x80\x93 560\n22) Correlated evolution between hearing sensitivity and social calls in bats. Bohn, Kirsten M. ; Moss, Cynthia F. ; Wilkinson, Gerald S., p. 561 \xe2\x80\x93 564\n23) Insects from the grazing food web favoured the evolutionary habitat shift to bright environments in araneoid spiders. Miyashita, Tadashi ; Shimazaki, Aya, p. 565 \xe2\x80\x93 568\n24) Consistent sex ratio bias of individual female dragon lizards, Uller, Tobias ; Mott, Beth ; Odierna, Gaetano ; Olsson, Mats, p. 569 \xe2\x80\x93 572\n25) Long-term maternal effect on offspring immune response in song sparrows Melospiza melodia. Reid, Jane M. ; Arcese, Peter ; Keller, Lukas F. ; Hasselquist, Dennis, p. 573 \xe2\x80\x93 576\n26) Nepotism and brood reliability in the suppression of worker reproduction in the eusocial Hymenoptera. Nonacs, Peter, p. 577 \xe2\x80\x93 579\n27) Gut reaction by heartless shrimps: experimental evidence for the role of the gut in generating circulation before cardiac ontogeny. Spicer, John I., p. 580 \xe2\x80\x93 582\n28) Extrafloral nectary phenotypic plasticity is damage- and resource-dependent in Vicia faba. Mondor, Edward B. ; Tremblay, Michelle N. ; Messing, Russell H., p. 583 \xe2\x80\x93 585\n29) Where do all the maternal effects go? Variation in offspring body size through ontogeny in the live-bearing fish <i>Poecilia parae</i>. Lindholm, Anna K.; Hunt, John ; Brooks, Robert, p. 586 \xe2\x80\x93 589\n30) Muscle fibre number varies with haemoglobin phenotype in Atlantic cod as predicted by the optimal fibre number hypothesis. Johnston, Ian A. ; Abercromby, Marguerite ; Andersen, \xc3\x83?ivind, p. 590 \xe2\x80\x93 592\n31) A novel obligate cultivation mutualism between damselfish and <i>Polysiphonia</i> algae. Hata, Hiroki ; Kato, Makoto, p. 593 \xe2\x80\x93 596\n32) Fathers in hot water: rising sea temperatures and a Northeastern Atlantic pipefish baby boom. Kirby, Richard R. ; Johns, David G. ; Lindley, John A., p. 597 \xe2\x80\x93 600\n33) Typing single polymorphic nucleotides in mitochondrial DNA as a way to access Middle Pleistocene DNA. Valdiosera, Cristina ; Garc\xc3\xada, Nuria ; Dal\xc3\xa9n, Love ; et al., p. 601 \xe2\x80\x93 603\n34) Contrasting patterns of sequence divergence and base composition between <i>Drosophila</i> introns and intergenic regions. Ometto, Lino ; De Lorenzo, David ; Stephan, Wolfgang, p. 604 \xe2\x80\x93 607\n35) Olfactory memory capacity of the cricket <i>Gryllus bimaculatus</i>. Matsumoto, Yukihisa ; Mizunami, Makoto, p. 608 \xe2\x80\x93 610\n36) Prey choice and cannibalistic behaviour in the theropod Coelophysis. Nesbitt, Sterling J. ; Turner, Alan H. ; Erickson, Gregory M. ; Norell, Mark A., p. 611 \xe2\x80\x93 614\n37) An archaic crested plesiosaur in opal from the Lower Cretaceous high-latitude deposits of Australia. Kear, Benjamin , P. ; Schroeder, Natalie I. ; Lee, Michael S.Y., p. 615 \xe2\x80\x93 619\n38) Endophytic fungus decreases plant virus infections in meadow ryegrass ( Lolium pratense). Lehtonen, P\xc3\xa4ivi T.; Helander, Marjo; Siddiqui, Shahid A.; et al., p. 620 \xe2\x80\x93 623\n39) Linking ecology, behaviour and conservation: does habitat saturation change the mating system of bearded vultures? Carrete, Martina ; Don\xc3\xa1zar, Jos\xc3\xa9 A. ; Margalida, Antoni ; Bertran, Joan, p. 624 \xe2\x80\x93 627\n40) Ocean climate prior to breeding affects the duration of the nestling period in the Atlantic puffin. Durant, Jo\xc3\xabl M. ; Anker-Nilssen, Tycho ; Stenseth, Nils Chr., p. 628 \xe2\x80\x93 631\n41) Selectivity of harvesting differs between local and foreign roe deer hunters: trophy stalkers have the first shot at the right place. Mysterud, Atle ; Tryjanowski, Piotr ; Panek, Marek, p. 632 \xe2\x80\x93 635\n42) Low intensity, mixed livestock grazing improves the breeding abundance of a common insectivorous passerine. Evans, Darren M. ; Redpath, Stephen M. ; Evans, Sharon A. ; et al., p. 636 \xe2\x80\x93 638\n43) Low worldwide genetic diversity in the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). Rus Hoelzel, A. ; Shivji, Mahmood S. ; Magnussen, Jennifer ; Francis, Malcolm P., p. 639 \xe2\x80\x93 642 \nThat\'s one issue of one journal, out of many. Now let\'s compare that to the output in the one and only ID journal (ISCID "PCID") over the last few years:\n | 1.8 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "yellow journalism block the viewers from significant news, such as education, environment and public issues", target argumentative component: "sensationalism distract the viewers from public or social problems" | support |
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’re facing a tsunami of unemployment here
Proposition2: Andy Unknown is sure restaurants or pubs need to be open | Default Inference |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: we should not limit judicial activism because it is an important check and balance on the legislative and executive arms of government.; Topic: We should limit judicial activism | con |
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: Work for themselves vs work for employer
Most people want to work for an employer, because they want to feel secure about their salary, or feel comfortable about other problems of having own job such as paying tax, worrying about selling, etc. Despite these problems, personally, I would prefer to have my own job. My arguments are listed as follows.
First, time is the more valuable thing, which I have in my life. By having my own business, I can manage my own time. I could work whenever I want, or I do not need to give reasons to my boss for a delay. I can arrange time to travel when I would like. In addition, I can work long hours for earning more money. Totally, the most important reason for me to be self-employed is the sense of free.
Moreover, earning money is the fundamental reason that why people work. The amount of money is always the most important criterion for everyone to choose a job. If I work for other people, I have to give my ideas to employers cheaply. Therefore, I never have been rich in my life, because my salary is not dramatically changed. In spite of many problems of having own business, I can earn more money based on my creativity and personal ideas.
To sum up, in spite of the fact that many people are not eager to work for themselves, I would like to run my own business to control my own time, and to earn more money based on my noble ideas.
Argumentative components: I would prefer to have my own job
By having my own business, I can manage my own time
could work whenever I want, or I do not need to give reasons to my boss for a delay
I can arrange time to travel when I would like
I can work long hours for earning more money
the most important reason for me to be self-employed is the sense of free
time is the more valuable thing, which I have in my life
I never have been rich in my life
If I work for other people, I have to give my ideas to employers cheaply
my salary is not dramatically changed
I can earn more money based on my creativity and personal ideas
earning money is the fundamental reason that why people work
The amount of money is always the most important criterion for everyone to choose a job
many people are not eager to work for themselves
I would like to run my own business to control my own time, and to earn more money based on my noble ideas | Major claims:
I would prefer to have my own job
I would like to run my own business to control my own time, and to earn more money based on my noble ideas
Claims:
I would prefer to have my own job
time is the more valuable thing, which I have in my life
I never have been rich in my life
many people are not eager to work for themselves
I would like to run my own business to control my own time, and to earn more money based on my noble ideas
Premises:
By having my own business, I can manage my own time
could work whenever I want, or I do not need to give reasons to my boss for a delay
I can arrange time to travel when I would like
I can work long hours for earning more money
the most important reason for me to be self-employed is the sense of free
If I work for other people, I have to give my ideas to employers cheaply
my salary is not dramatically changed
I can earn more money based on my creativity and personal ideas
earning money is the fundamental reason that why people work
The amount of money is always the most important criterion for everyone to choose a job |
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: Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.
Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010
Candidate 1: "This would not protect wives. In these situations the wife would be expected to have unprotected sex, so that the couple could conceive a child, even if the Church condoned the use of contraception. If a husband contracts HIV, the Catholic Church condoning or forbidding the use of condoms makes absolutely no difference to the fact that his wife is very likely to contract it also. The only action by the Church that would affect this would be to try and highlight the fact that sex outside of marriage is also forbidden to a greater degree and allowing the use of contraception would only weaken this message."
Candidate 2: "In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.
Many Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report."
Candidate 3: "Going back on this rule would promote casual sex
Condoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering "the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968."
Candidate 4: "Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV.
There are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified."
Candidate 5: "The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church."
Candidate 6: "Birth control within monogamous relationships.
Contraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.
Contraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.
Since, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.
1. Insley 2011"
Candidate 7: "The commandment given is to 'go forth and multiply', not to multiply as much as possible with no thought for sustainability. Contraception can help monogamous couples control the amount of children they have and when so that they can ensure they don't have more children than they can sustainably provide for. The idea that any limitation of procreation is against God is a single interpretation of a very ambiguous passage. The Catholic Church has the freedom to choose the interpretation that is best for humanity."
Candidate 8: "The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.
Catholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible."
Candidate 9: "The Catholic Church also forbids sex outside of marriage. The opposition has tried to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church actually does not allow sex outside of marriage either. It is not a case of the Church saying it is acceptable to have casual sex as long as contraception is not used but saying that neither is acceptable. If abstinence were practised, there would be no HIV epidemic. Since the Church preaches abstinence outside of marriage it cannot be held accountable for the HIV epidemic."
Candidate 10: "Opposed by much of the Church
In spite of the Catholic Church's ruling, a huge number of people who identify as Catholic do not adhere to the Church's teachings on contraception. Additionally, many Catholic priests and nuns openly support non-abortive forms of contraception, including barrier contraception. In 2003 a poll found 43% of catholic priests in England and wales were against the church's stance and a further 19% were unsure1. The Church should listen to the requests and opinions of those who are part of it 2. 1 Day, Elizabeth. "Most Catholic priests 'do not support Rome over contraception'." The Telegraph, 6 April 2003, 2 Short, Claire. "HIV/AIDS"
Candidate 11: "Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.
It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968."
Candidate 12: "AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place."
Candidate 13: "The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The opposition makes no mention of the huge numbers of Catholics who actually support the Church's decision to forbid barrier contraception. There is by no means a clear majority either way. Even if there was a clear majority of Catholics in favour of barrier contraception, the Church is under no obligation to change its official stances or any part of the way it works based on the opinions of members of the Church. The Church is founded on the basis that it is doing God's bidding and changing its working based on the demand of the people would undermine that."
Candidate 14: "This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible."
Candidate 15: "The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception."
Candidate 16: "Radical changes risk stability of the Catholic Church. As outlined in the main proposition case, rather than making the Catholic Church seem as if it can move with the times, suddenly changing its stance on barrier contraception would make the Church seem weak and would lose a lot of its support. Since their stance on barrier contraception is something that the Catholic Church has stood by for a huge number of years suddenly moving on it would throw their conviction on everything into question and would have a severe negative effect on the stability of the Church."
Candidate 17: "Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn.
Organised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one.
1.Wynne-Jones 2010"
Candidate 18: "More casual sex with barrier contraception is preferable to the current amount without contraception. The amount of consensual sex is not going to change no matter what the church teaches. As long as the use of barrier contraception was promoted along with this promotion of casual sex, it would be a huge net reduction in the cases of contraction of HIV. Therefore, condoning the use of barrier contraception would be the more responsible stand to take on the part of the Catholic Church."
Candidate 19: "In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.
The Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift." The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." 1995."
| The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church.
|
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: guantanamo bay is still housing prisoners and doing what it intended to do; Topic: We should close Guantanamo Bay detention camp | con |
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Anas Sarwar : do you really want to spend five years of that nine years arguing about independence
Proposition: Lorna Slater really wants to spend five years of that nine years arguing about Scottish independence | Assertive Questioning |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: As a matter of perspective on the above;\nRoe is, was and always will be the historical reference for an example of "judicial activism."
Response: In fact, just the opposite is true.\nHave you ever read the entire decision? If you did, you would have a very different conclusion.\nIn point of fact, Roe is a model of judicial restraint. Mr. Justice Blackmun takes great pains to point out in the opening of the majority opinion that there are many competing theories and answers to the metaphysical question of when personhood begins, and that those who hold to each of those positions is quite passionate in its defense.\nTherefore, the opinion takes great pains to point out, the Court is in no position to choose one from among all the competing theories and stamp it with the government's imprimatur. \nUltimately, the decision points out, the choice must be left where it properly belongs, in the hands of each individual woman.\nThe later term abortions that the decision discusses, which form a minuscule percentage of those performed, were not declared to be illegal or unconstitutional in any way whatsoever. The Court simply said that, in order to protect the health of the woman, the state could prescribe the site of the abortion.\nDid the decision go far enough? Not really, in my opinion. I would have wanted the Court to eliminate all restrictions whatsoever and leave the choice strictly up to the woman involved. Given the climate of 1973, that was ground the Court was not willing to plow. | -3.33333 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments phrased as counters. | Argument: Aid benefits National Security
In Obama’s 2012 campaign, promoting good governance through foreign aid makes sense for a range of foreign policy and development objectives. Through contributions in healthcare, education, poverty alleviation and infrastructure, investing in foreign aid and increasing the foreign aid budget will help create a more peaceful and safe global environment. Robert Gates, former US Secretary of Defense, has stated that “cutting aid jeopardizes US national security. It also creates a greater vacuum in so-called fragile states, which can easily be filled by those who do not have US interests at heart. There is no doubt that foreign assistance helps ward off future military conflicts.” [1] In much the same way as encouraging people to eat healthily will likely reduce expenditures on healthcare in the future so some spending on aid with resulting development and better perceptions of the United States can reduce conflicts in the future so saving money in the long run by preventing the need for expensive armed interventions.
[1] Worthington, Samuel, ‘US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2011.
Candidate 1: "While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more of it would. The answer is undoubtedly yes. The same money would benefit the economy much more if handed back to the citizen to spend themselves or directly invested in the United States. The developing world would then in turn benefit because more Americans spending means more purchasing of goods made in developing countries. The United States exports $2-3billion worth of goods to Africa every month while it imports around $6billion [1] clearly then Africa is benefiting from trade with the United States and more spending in the United States will benefit Africa.
[1] ‘Trade in Goods with Africa’, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Census Bureau, 2012."
Candidate 2: "It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and transnational crime, or are areas where the United States has no responsibility to be providing assistance such as global education and health. The reality is that there are not rising commitments for foreign aid; far from it. The number of people in absolute poverty (less than $1.25 per day) has declined from 1.91 billion in 1990 to 1.29 billion in 2008 despite a rapidly rising population. [1] Moreover it is not foreign aid that is bringing about this decline but trade and the resulting economic growth in developing countries. [2] It is therefore completely the wrong strategy to be increasing foreign aid to tackle these problems.
[1] ‘Poverty’, The World Bank, March 2012.
[2] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011."
Candidate 3: "Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent on foreign aid.
It is also wrong to assert that the US government debt is borrowing money from China as most government borrowing comes from the US private sector. [2] China owns a mere 9.3% of US government debt with the majority being owed either to US individuals and institutions (41.7%) or to the Social Security Trust Fund (17.1%). [3]
[1] Geiger, Jacob, ‘Barak Obama says foreign aid makes up 1 percent of U.S. budget’, Tampa Bay Times, 13 April 2011.
[2] Krugman, Paul, ‘Fear-of-China Syndrome’, The New York Times, 30 August 2012.
[3] ‘Who Owns U.S. Debt’, RealClearPolicy, 2 April 2012."
Candidate 4: "Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach international markets. Freer trade has not obviously been a driver of growth; poverty has fallen while the Doha round of trade liberalisation has got nowhere. [1] Instead the policies that have succeeded for China have been mercantilist policies, China may rely on trade to export its goods but it succeeded in creating its manufacturing capacity because of currency manipulation and government subsidies, things that anyone for free trade would be against. [2]
[1] Chandy, Laurence, and Gertz, Geoffrey, ‘With Little Notice, Globalization Reduced Poverty’, YaleGlobal, 5 July 2011.
[2] Prestowitz, Clyde, ‘China’s not breaking the rules. It’s playing a different game.’, Foreign Policy, 17 February 2012."
Candidate 5: "Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]
[1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.
[2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012."
Candidate 6: "The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, countering the proliferation efforts of North Korea, or ensuring transparency in the military activities of the region's key players.” [1] However it is wrong to maintain that this should be considered as a part of foreign aid instead the U.S. maintains the global commons because it gains most out of them, the U.S. military is the biggest beneficiary of freedom of navigation and of the maintenance of space as a global commons as they allow the military’s global reach to be maintained. [2]
The United States may not be legally obligated to provide foreign aid and international development efforts but there are moral obligations as President Kennedy recognised when creating USAID: "There is no escaping our obligations: our moral obligations as a wise leader and good neighbor in the interdependent community of free nations – our economic obligations as the wealthiest people in a world of largely poor people, as a nation no longer dependent upon the loans from abroad that once helped us develop our own economy – and our political obligations as the single largest counter to the adversaries of freedom." [3] Today this is just as true as it was then; the United States is still one of the richest states on earth. Moreover there is an international target of 0.7% of GDP being spent overseas development assistance which the United States has signed up to and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since it was first adopted in 1970. [4]
[1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘America’s Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011.
[2] Denmark, Abraham M., ‘Managing the Global Commons’, Washington Quarterly, 30 June 2010.
[3] Kennedy, John F., ’90 – Special Message to the Congress on Foreign Aid.’, The American Presidency Project, 22 March 1961.
[4] ‘The 0.7% ODA/GNI target – a history’, OSCE."
Candidate 7: "Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]
[1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.
[2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011."
| Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national security. Foreign aid clearly does not benefit national security because the recipient will spend it how they want and often this will be in ways that are detrimental to U.S. security, whether this is though the aid being spent on products from China or being lost to corruption. Aid from the United States has often not been beneficial in the past the U.S. gave Egypt $1.5 billion per year in aid [1] yet is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan received $963 million and yet supports the Taliban fighting against the US in Afghanistan. [2]
[1] Holan, Angie Drobnic, ‘Egypt got more foreign aid than anyone besides Israel, says New York Times Columnist Ross Douthat’, Tampa Bay Times, 4 February 2011.
[2] Bajoria, Jayshree, ‘The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 May 2011.
|
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. | Presidents can also rely on a cornucopia of powers provided by Congress, which has historically been the principal source of emergency authority for the executive branch. Throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries, Congress passed laws to give the president additional leeway during military, economic, and labor crises. A more formalized approach evolved in the early 20th century, when Congress legislated powers that would lie dormant until the president activated them by declaring a national emergency. These statutory authorities began to pile up—and because presidents had little incentive to terminate states of emergency once declared, these piled up too. By the 1970s, hundreds of statutory emergency powers, and four clearly obsolete states of emergency, were in effect. For instance, the national emergency that Truman declared in 1950, during the Korean War, remained in place and was being used to help prosecute the war in Vietnam. | Presidents can also rely on a cornucopia of powers provided by Congress Congress passed laws to give the president additional leeway during military, economic, and labor crises. . These statutory authorities began to pile up By the 1970s, hundreds of statutory emergency powers, and four clearly obsolete states of emergency, were in effect. |
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: Hey, let me jump in on this one.\nCreation science has found nothing. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, on this one. Creation science is wrong and has been proven so by the scientific community time and time again. Look at pretty much any post on this forum and you will see this. Every time a Creat brings up an argument, the secular residents of this site beat them down with logic and reason.\nNo Creat argument has stood up to the test of science. Pure and simple.
Response: point me toward the right way then? if creationists are wrong then why is evolution right? this is a biased answer based on your beliefs. please tell us how creationists were wrong. i would gladly like to see you try! | -0.2 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Popularity of mobile phones to young people
Nowadays, many young people consider mobile phone as the most important thing in their lives as it keeps them constantly organized and it provides much convenience for them to reach out their families and friends. Despite all these positive aspects, I think that the popularity of mobile phones to the young generation is a bad development.
First of all, many young owners of cellular phones are struggling at school because they are distracted most of the time with their phones. Games and applications installed in phones have occupied much of their time, leaving them lesser time for their studies and other school activities. Similarly, internet capable phones help influence the young ones to become more interested in chatting and social sites rather than doing school works. In my college days, I was once addicted to a certain game on my cellular phone. I have spent most of my time trying to reach a higher level to show-off to my friends. That goal has led me to my lost in interest on doing my homework and I ended up failing one subject in that semester.
Secondly, juveniles who possess mobile phones have great tendencies to become materialistic. They would not only purchase a phone because of its functionality but also for its brand. Relatively, these do not come at a significant and inexpensive cost. Furthermore, most of these juveniles are students so they would need their parents to support them financially for what they want. An illustration of this unfortunate trend can be seen almost everywhere these days, wherein most teens at an early age own phones which are worth twice the salary of their parents.
This clearly shows that the negative impacts brought about by mobile phones are harmful to a person’s education and character. Therefore, I highly discourage the young ones to be overly dependent on mobile phones. | the popularity of mobile phones to the young generation is a bad development
the negative impacts brought about by mobile phones are harmful to a person’s education and character
many young owners of cellular phones are struggling at school because they are distracted most of the time with their phones
Games and applications installed in phones have occupied much of their time, leaving them lesser time for their studies and other school activities
internet capable phones help influence the young ones to become more interested in chatting and social sites rather than doing school works
In my college days, I was once addicted to a certain game on my cellular phone
I have spent most of my time trying to reach a higher level to show-off to my friends
That goal has led me to my lost in interest on doing my homework and I ended up failing one subject in that semester
juveniles who possess mobile phones have great tendencies to become materialistic
They would not only purchase a phone because of its functionality but also for its brand
they would need their parents to support them financially for what they want
most of these juveniles are students
An illustration of this unfortunate trend can be seen almost everywhere these days, wherein most teens at an early age own phones which are worth twice the salary of their parents
these do not come at a significant and inexpensive cost |
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: Dams displace communities
Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around?
[1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/06/29/will-congo-benefit-from-grand-inga-dam/
Candidate 1: "Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny."
Candidate 2: "The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity."
Candidate 3: "The World Bank would be taking a lead role in the project and it proclaims “The World Bank has a zero-tolerance policy on corruption, and we have some of the toughest fiduciary standards of any development agency, including a 24/7 fraud and corruption hotline with appropriate whistle-blower protection.” All documentation would be in the public domain and online so ensuring complete transparency. [1]
[1] Maake, Moyagabo, ‘Concern over SA’s billions in DRC Inga project’, Business Day Live, 24 March 2013, http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2013/03/24/concern-over-sas-billions-in-drc-inga-project"
Candidate 4: "Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids.
[1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/21/hillary-clinton-clean-stove-initiative-africa"
Candidate 5: "Will enable the rebuilding of DRC
DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013.
[1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013, http://www.trust.org/item/?map=ethiopia-seeks-to-power-east-africa-with-hydro
[2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-28/south-africa-s-eskom-to-raise-power-prices-8-a-year-for-5-years.html"
Candidate 6: "An immense boost to DRC’s economy
The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1]
[1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013, http://www.ujuh.co.za/movement-on-the-grand-inga-hydropower-project/"
Candidate 7: "The dam would power Africa
Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4]
[1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTESC/Resources/Addressing_the_Electricity_Access_Gap.pdf p.89
[2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013, http://go.worldbank.org/6ITD8WA1A0
[3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013, http://www.southafrica.info/africa/grandinga-200513.htm#.UqGkNOImZI0
[4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_huge_new_hydro_projects_bring_power_to_africas_people/2656/"
Candidate 8: "A dam could make the Congo more usable
While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment."
| Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.
|
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: Victor Adebowale's heart goes out to the family of Sara Everard
Proposition2: Sarah Everard's murder is very raw for one particular family | Default Rephrase |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: We should not tar all of one race with the same brush.; Topic: We should end racial profiling | pro |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Communism vs. capitalism
Quote: Just because I don?t like something does not mean I think it should be outlawed.
Response: But you don't like intellectual property and consign it to non-existence.\n | 0.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments. | Argument: Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.
The role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1]
[1] ‘Sports, Media and Stereotypes Women and Men in Sports and Media’, Centre for Gender Equality, 2006, p.19.
Candidate 1: "The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.
Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.
[1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012."
Candidate 2: "The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place."
Candidate 3: "The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.
If the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable."
Candidate 4: "The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.
Sport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:
In terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport.
The media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance.
This male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.
[1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009.
[2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation.
[3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998."
Candidate 5: "The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.
It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.
[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010."
Candidate 6: "Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.
Media coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public.
Given the difference in popularity between women and men’s sport, media companies have to focus on men’s sporting events as that will largely enable them to compete with rivals and secure greater revenue.
[1] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998."
Candidate 7: "The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]
Crucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]
This is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.
[1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.
[2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.
[3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009."
Candidate 8: "Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport
Increased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons.
In the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport.
The Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1]
Increased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB).
[1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012.
[2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009."
Candidate 9: "Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.
A more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps.
The successes of British female athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, or the young Katie Ledecky from the USA in the recent Olympics have captured the hearts and imagination of a huge number of young girls across the UK and already, as local sports centres and athletics clubs have seen participation amongst girls soar during and after the London Olympics. This is no coincidence – it is because of the media attention and glorification female athletes receive. The Olympic Games are an example of what equal media coverage of men’s and women’s sport can achieve, The equal coverage of Grand Slam tennis and the subsequent glorification of the likes of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams is another example. We must take action to provide the same sort of role models across all sporting events.
[1] ‘Girls’ attitudes explored… Role models’, Girlguiding UK, 2012, p.14"
Candidate 10: "Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general
The proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports.
The consequences of an impaired sports media industry would have negative effects on both women’s and men’s sport because they will receive less funding. Let us examine how the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is funded, as a case study. The overwhelming majority of the ECB’s funds come from TV rights sales. In 2012 alone contracts were signed with Sky and ESPN worth a total of £385 million. [1] Forcing these media giants to show an equal amount of women’s cricket as men’s would be destructive simply because interest in women’s cricket is nowhere near as high. Consequently, the ECB would see its TV rights value slashed and its income severely lowered.
A similar story to this described above would ensue with many other team sports like football and rugby where the men’s sport has a huge fan base. The result would be hugely diminished funding for all facets of sport, most likely including women’s. Consequently, all the benefits the proposition are trying to achieve with this motion would not be achieved, and if anything one would observe a decline in participation and standards of facilities and coaching. This is because the development, facilities and grass roots programs funded by organisations like the ECB and the Football Association (FA) are all funded from the same pool of money, whether the income has come from men’s or women’s sport. Crucially, this explains the proposition’s identification of growing female participation in sport while media coverage remains low.
[1] Hoult, Nick: “England and Wales Cricket Board to step up security in wke of new £125m Asian TV rights deal”, The Telegraph, 17 May, 2012."
Candidate 11: "The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.
The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.
[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005."
Candidate 12: "Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.
The male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport.
Humans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1]
By forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport. This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit.
[1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934."
Candidate 13: "The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.
Moreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical."
| The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.
The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.
[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.
|
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: Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.
Those running media corporations should be morally upright people who control their media companies in the public interest as these are organisations that potentially have a lot of influence through their control of information. This is however not at all how Rupert Murdoch ran News Corp or his newspapers.
Murdoch has been running his empire in pursuit of power and to advance a right wing agenda. [1] His influence was such that even naturally left wing parties such as New Labour under Tony Blair stuck to right wing or wing orthodoxies in order to keep the support of the Murdoch press. [2] Murdoch was therefore pushing narrow interests rather than the public interest. Murdoch’s News Corporation has shown their lack of moral scruples not just by engaging in industrial scale hacking but also by its determination to use its contacts to close down investigations by parliament or the police as well as being willing to destroy evidence and lie when giving evidence. Tom Watson MP has gone so far as to accuse Murdoch of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise”. [3]
The attitude of the person at the top towards how their company and its staff should conduct themselves informs how they do conduct themselves and engage in their business. It is the owners and the management that create the corporate culture which in Murdoch tabloids meant profits at all costs and doing anything to get a story. [4]
[1] Puttnam, David, ‘News Corporation has sought to undermine elected governments’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.
[2] Holehouse, Matthew, ‘The Blairs and the Murdochs: a special relationship’, The Telegraph, 22 February 2012.
[3] The Economist, ‘Stringfellows: A British MP’s long-awaited account of investigating the Murdoch empire’, 28 April 2012.
[4] Grayson, David, ‘Phone hacking: what corporate responsibility could have done to stop it’, Guardian Professional, 25 July 2011.
Candidate 1: "It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; Murdoch has been unusual in succeeding in recent years in still making profits from selling news. Murdoch is clearly willing to sometimes make losses, as at the Times which loses £42million a year, but this is not because it maximises his power but because it has international prestige as tabloids don’t. [1]
[1] Northedge, Richard, ‘Will Murdoch quit Britain?’ Prospect, 20 July 2011."
Candidate 2: "Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.
An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and really represent those who elected them. [1] In order for the press to be able to remain independent and able to carry out this function it needs to have powerful backers itself. Murdoch is one such backer. Multinational companies with large holdings spread across numerous countries can much easier resist government pressure than national or local newspapers without such backing as they can continue attacking a government regardless of the pressure an individual government puts upon it as the owners. Murdoch by making politicians dance to his tune was doing exactly what the press is supposed to do; preventing governments from being too powerful by appearing to have some power to bring the government down if necessary. If this translated into too much influence this was the fault of politicians not Mr Murdoch. [2]
[1] Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, ‘The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach’, U.S. Agency for International Development, June 1999, p.3
[2] Wolff, Michael, ‘Rupert Murdoch before the Leveson inquiry’, guardian.co.uk, 23 April 2012."
Candidate 3: "News organisations cannot be completely transparent if they are to do their job properly and News International is no exception. Such organisations cannot for example reveal their sources as this may sometimes put their sources at risk and would mean that others would not come forward. As part of this news companies need to keep secret how they obtained information. While an attempt by a newspaper to cover up crimes is regrettable this one newspapers actions should not tar the whole company and its other papers."
Candidate 4: "We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you were expected to operate ... stray too far too often from his general outlook and you will be looking for a new job." [1] This may not be complete control of the editorial line but it is certainly influencing it.
[1] B arr, Robert, ‘Praise, scepticism for Murdoch in UK newspapers’, Associated Press, 26 April 2012."
Candidate 5: "Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?” [1] Murdoch has presided over a media company and newspapers that have not remained honest and have been too close to the politicians they are meant to be holding in check.
[1] ‘Background’, The Leveson Inquiry."
Candidate 6: "The Sun and the News of the World sold newspapers through sensationalism and sex, not content that was in the public interest. As such Murdoch’s success at selling newspapers should not have any bearing on whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a media corporation."
Candidate 7: "There was a lack of transparency in News Corp
The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and transparency. [1] The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has published a report in which it concludes that the culture of the publication, News of the World, was “throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions.” [2] The strategy was to blame individuals and when such a containment strategy failed to shut down the News of the World so as to protect top bosses. [3] News International was clearly not living up to high standards of transparency.
[1] Porter, Henry, ‘We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.
[2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.84
[3] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.67"
Candidate 8: "Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.
It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in the press. Even when it comes to the editorial lines of his newspapers Murdoch did not always influence them, he controlled the Sun but not the stance of the Times. [1]
[1] Holton, Kate and Prodhan, Georgina, ‘Murdoch denies playing puppet master to British elite’, Reuters, 25 April 2012,"
Candidate 9: "The head of no large corporation has complete control of their operations. The head of the BBC almost certainly does not know all the policies and everything that is happening in the BBC’s Persian language division. While the head of the company is ultimately responsible it is unrealistic to believe that they will have such day to day control as everyone seems to believe Murdoch had. Murdoch himself explains “the News of the
World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world” and points out that in such a big organisation he has to rely on senior managers. [1] This very lack of control is itself a good thing; it ensures that there is decentralisation with most control at the local level with the individual editors of newspapers and programmes.
[1] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.64"
Candidate 10: "Murdoch is effective at selling news
The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a million copies a day but by 1976 circulation was up to 3.7 million. [1] Murdoch has been very successful at selling newspapers, a declining industry, and has been supportive of both down market tabloids and quality broadsheets. That the News of the World up to its closure and The Sun have remained Britain’s most popular newspapers shows Murdoch is an effective media proprietor and fit to bring news to the people. If he was not customers would vote with their money.
[1] ‘The newspaper industry’, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1985, p.5"
Candidate 11: "Lack of control
Rupert Murdoch has an immense empire and if we believe his testimony obviously did not have as much control over his publications, or take as much responsibility for them, as he should have done. Murdoch himself has claimed “someone took charge of a cover-up we were victim to and I regret that." This was a cover up within the News of the World and News International that kept Murdoch out of the loop and misinformed on phone hacking, showing that he was unable to keep control over his businesses when he was the one with ultimate responsibility for the actions of that company. [1] The commons culture committee concluded that Murdoch was essentially negligent "at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications." [2]
[1] BBC News, ‘Leveson Inquiry: Murdoch admits missing hacking ‘cover-up’, 26 April 2012.
[2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.70"
| It is unfair to blame the culture in a newspaper, only one among many in Murdoch’s empire, on Rupert Murdoch. With hundreds of publications to control Murdoch would never be able to set corporate culture for every paper. Nor is it correct to accuse Murdoch of running his papers in pursuit of power rather than profit; Murdoch has been unusual in succeeding in recent years in still making profits from selling news. Murdoch is clearly willing to sometimes make losses, as at the Times which loses £42million a year, but this is not because it maximises his power but because it has international prestige as tabloids don’t. [1]
[1] Northedge, Richard, ‘Will Murdoch quit Britain?’ Prospect, 20 July 2011.
|
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Fiona Bruce : Rather than do what Daisy is suggesting after the first four million start sending vaccines abroad
Proposition: the UK Government should start sending vaccines abroad after the first four million doses have been manufactured | Challenging |
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: Healthcare
Quote: I do not understand why the same people who claim that the government is incopetent and inefficient are afraid that the public option will outcompete the insurance copanies and put them out of business.
Response: So, I assume that you bought all of the liberal demogoguery about the big health insurance companies making obscence profits on the backs of dying people?\nHere's a little factual info for you. There was a recent ranking on the profitability of a wide variety of Industry types. I believe it was done by Forbes. The health care insurance companies ranked 35th in profitability with an ROI of 2.2%. To put that in perspective, if the companies fired all of their employees and converted all of their assets to cash, they'd have made more money putting in in a bank and drawing interest. emoticonXRolleyes | 1.66667 |
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: 25 years on and whenever Rosie Jones walks in the street alone, she wears headphones because of how she walks and talks
Proposition2: the Disability Discrimination Act was groundbreaking | Default Conflict |
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 by Turaga et al. is a useful guide for novice and advanced users of R/Bioconductor and Galaxy to incorporate any R/Bioconductor packages within the popular Galaxy software.
We believe that by allowing users to integrate any Bioconductor package within Galaxy will add enormous utility and advancement for any analyst.
We envision users with little experience with R/Bioconductor would eventually be able to seek support to integrate any new Bioconductor package and thus incorporate the workflow within their data analysis pipeline within Galaxy.
The authors have done an excellent job by highlighting several key best practices to achieve a reliable integration as well as the necessary structure to integrate a new BioC packages with example files highlighted within their supplemental data.
This integration is explained through two distinct processes;
A manual version and a semi-automated process that utilizes the tool Planemo ( https://github.com/galaxyproject/planemo ), a command-line suite of tool to assist in developing tools for the Galaxy Project.
The authors envision a more streamlined version of their tool with subsequent improvements, and the expectations will eventually lead to a larger base of users (little and no experience in R to advanced users).
The text is well-written and is well structured, and we were able to follow the manual integration.
However, due in part to a non-working version of the latest build from the GitHub repository, we were unable to implement the planemo tool `bioc_tool_init` and thus we can not provide a thorough evaluation of the tool.
We expect that once the tool is available, we can provide a proper evaluation by integrating a random BioC package.
Some minor points:
- In the tool dependency file description, we were unable to understand how and where one would obtain the name and owner of each dependency.
For example, we were unable to find the name and owner of seqTools in https://toolshed.g2.bx.psu.edu/ .
- In the tool integration section, the code has the full path and the relative path for the file in the section.
We feel this is redundant.
Please consider modifying the code.
https://gist.github.com/tiagochst/a7b0ff56a864ca1ae2d5eaeaee82db9b
- This issue is probably not the author's fault, but the supplementary files do not possess the same name as the example.
For this reason, the user has to download and rename them to execute the guide.
Maybe adding a compressed zip with the correct names would help.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=
Major problems:
Planemo: `bioc_tool_init` unavailable
As explained in the methods section we were able to install the latest version of Planemo (0.36.1).
However, the command `bioc_tool_init` was unavailable and thus we were unable to evaluate the command by testing it with our packages.
We followed the following instructions posted here: https://github.com/galaxyproject/planemo (Here is a screenshot of the version and the problem we experienced during install https://goo.gl/kyh33j ).
If further steps are required to install the `bioc_tool_init` function, we feel it should be well documented either in git or this manuscript.
Due to its unavailability to test and confirm it's practicality, we are unable to accept this MS in its current form for publication.
Once the tool is available, we can provide a complete evaluation. | Structure
Strength
Strength
Strength
Strength
Recap
Recap
Strength
Strength
Weakness
Other
Structure
Weakness
Weakness
Recap
Weakness
Todo
Other
Weakness
Other
Todo
Structure
Structure
Weakness
Other
Weakness
Other
Todo
Other
Other |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: marijuana legalization
Stance: CON
Aspect: prohibition | But if you think about it , this whole thing has been based around two things : 1 ) Marijuana prohibition - people who want to smoke pot do n't care how much they get busted or what their punishment will be ; 2 ) People who want to smoke weed ca n't afford legal alternatives . |
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: Poorly constructed laws are not an excuse to abandon the prison system
The proposition does nothing to address the root cause of overcrowding in prisons and “over-inclusive” penal codes. The problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by flogging. The strain placed on penal institutions and systems of sentencing originates in a political culture that cynically exploits public fear of crime and social breakdown to win votes and project power.
As noted above, many law makers frequently set out to “discover” or “invent” new forms of criminal offence, in order to appear proactive in reducing criminality or protecting communities from state or corporate graft [i] . Dogmatic and over-zealous responses to existing problems can also transform civil or disciplinary issues into crimes. A case in point is Indian anti corruption campaigners’ insistence on the use of a broad and open definition of “bribery” in a proposed open-government law. Under the “three strikes” implemented in the US state of California, approximately 3700 non-violent repeat offenders are serving life sentences [ii] . A US medical specialist received a twenty five year prison term when a number of his patients, without his knowledge, were found to have been illegal selling the drugs he had prescribed to them. Additionally, the practice of electing judicial officials in states such as the US incentives candidates to hand out sentences or file charges that generate a positive public response, whether or not they are suitable response to the actions and circumstances of offenders [iii] .
The resolution purports to discipline and restrain criminals, but does nothing to discipline and restrain law makers. Simply replacing custodial sentences with flogging will do nothing to address the factors that have led to an unreasonable expansion of penal law. The process of excessive criminalisation may even be accelerated, as the reduced cost of flogging over imprisonment encourages policy makers to turn to corporal punishment as a populist, knee-jerk response to civil disorder or moral panics.
Evidence of the inappropriate use of corporal punishment has already emerged from states such as Singapore, where, in 1995 a 48-year-old French citizen was caned for breaking the conditions of his Visa. Corporal sentences have also been given to Singaporean citizens convicted of vandalism and criticising Singapore’s judiciary. In Malaysia during 2010 and 2009 [iv] , state-sanctioned religious courts ordered the caning of four women who had admitted to extra marital affairs and drinking alcohol [v] – the first sentences of their kind in the history of the modern Malaysian state.
[i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
[ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
[iii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
[iv] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/02/201021844619366612.html
[v] “Malaysia in heated debate over caning of woman”, World Corporal Punishment Research, 25 July 2009, http://www.corpun.com/09archive/myj00907.htm#21492
Candidate 1: "There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and “strengthening” probation and parole systems [i] .
The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.
The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.
There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.
[i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528"
Candidate 2: "As distasteful as debaters, moral philosophers and constitutional lawyers may find it, society still has a need to punish criminals. Although it seems to lack logic or reason (inflicting suffering on a criminal cannot be recompense for what he has taken, and may even prevent him from properly compensating his victim), a criminal justice system which does not punish will not command the confidence of the public.
If a criminal justice system is unable to command the confidence of the public, alternative methods of addressing criminal behaviour will be sought. Eliminating the role of punishment in criminal justice would put our entire judicial system at risk.
The resolution calls for a minimal and carefully controlled use of force by the state. This use of force is necessary in order to provide protection for the state’s citizens in the long term – by leaving the prison system free to treat and control offenders who are truly violent and dangerous, and by preventing the social exclusion of non-violent offenders.
While a state should endeavour to demonstrate the virtues of non violence and compromise, it can also fail in its duty to its citizens by being negligent of the needs of offenders, and wilfully ignorant of the most effective solutions to criminality."
Candidate 3: "Imprisonment punishes offenders’ families
Even though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.
Imprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender’s family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.
The negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.
Corporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families."
Candidate 4: "The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.
It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.
The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.
The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.
The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.
The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence"
Candidate 5: "Prison reform is politically unachievable
The failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals’ dishonest or violent activities.
Politicians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as “soft” on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges’ discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.
The use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive “justice”. Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public."
Candidate 6: "Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment
he criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?
Contemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.
Using corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.
In the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.
The cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.
The physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.
[i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/
[ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18867740"
Candidate 7: "Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely
A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57% [i] . The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality [ii] . The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release [iii] .
The long-term damage done to an offender’s life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender’s relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.
A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos’ own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to “move on” with the process of reform.
It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender’s behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender’s day to day life.
[i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528
[ii] “A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America”. Drucker, E. The New Press
[iii] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528"
| The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.
It may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.
The majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.
The failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.
The root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.
The danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence
|
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | we should get rid of the nuclear weapons because it will create a society which has no dynamic weapons that can destroy entire cities. this will lead to a safer and better future. | 0.891123319 |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Factor of choosing a career.
In many societies, choice of a job depends on the size of the salary offered. Nevertheless, while I admit that the salary is very pivotal factor, I claim that there are other equally vital aspects that need to be considered in this regard.
To begin with, I agree that in order for people to cover their daily and general needs they need money as well. However, aspects such as: friendly colleagues, environment and work-place condition, sometimes, have even more impact on person's happiness and quality of life. People, for instance, who don't like their co-workers and working condition are considered less satisfied with their jobs, despite of a high salary. In this sense, it is also one very salient proof of the accuracy of my position.
Further and even more importantly, most of the satisfaction of a job comes to people from their professional achievements, skills and the position they reach. In other words, career promotion or getting some kind of credit from the administration of a company or organization are, likely, more enjoyable achievements than getting a high salary. For example, people, who work in monotonous jobs, where no achievements or a new positions can be reached feel themselves more dissatisfied, even though they have a very good salaries.
In conclusion, I disagree with the idea that salary outweighs any other motivators, as there are other even more important aspects such as: friendly co-workers, working conditions and professional achievements. | the salary is very pivotal factor
there are other equally vital aspects that need to be considered in this regard
I disagree with the idea that salary outweighs any other motivators
there are other even more important aspects such as: friendly co-workers, working conditions and professional achievements
People, for instance, who don't like their co-workers and working condition are considered less satisfied with their jobs, despite of a high salary
in order for people to cover their daily and general needs they need money as well
aspects such as: friendly colleagues, environment and work-place condition, sometimes, have even more impact on person's happiness and quality of life
career promotion or getting some kind of credit from the administration of a company or organization are, likely, more enjoyable achievements than getting a high salary
most of the satisfaction of a job comes to people from their professional achievements, skills and the position they reach
people, who work in monotonous jobs, where no achievements or a new positions can be reached feel themselves more dissatisfied, even though they have a very good salaries |
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: Should we allow health-care to the homeless, and illegal?\nFor the homeless:\nYes. However, I think that it should be based upon how they got to be homeless. Because, sometimes, it's their fault. And in those times, I don't think that we should have to cover all of their health-care.\nDO I believe that we should cover some of it? Yes, because it's the right thing to do, and it is what our nation claims. Equal rights.\nHowever, I have nothing to say on the issue of the illegal, because a member in my family was recently attacked (stabbed) by one, and the wounds are too fresh, and if I speak on it, I will be speaking with prejudice, so I will leave that subject alone.\nBut, what are your views?
Response: So strange! I am an Atheist, yet I must defer to the 25th Chapter of Matthew in the New Testament, verses 35-36, the reference of Christianity:\n | -0.666667 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: having a child by your own genetic material is incredibly important to almost everyone. some people are unable to carry that child to term through no fault of their own. surrogacy is their only way to do this.; Topic: Surrogacy should be banned | 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 is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: The advancement of one scientific discipline cannot weaken another scientific study unless one was false to begin with.
Response: So abiogeneis is false? Why does talkorigins say it's true? Why does it remain in science textbooks? \n | -0.5 |
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? | due to the obligations of the students it is sometimes difficult to get a job, we must help them pay their loans so that they do not leave school | 0.613305202 |
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: That was a nice rant that had absolutely nothing to do with anything. The essential question is not what various religous leaders have said about the issue, but what the Bible says about the issue.
Response: Apparently I spoke well past your head...not my fault. Any ways...\nThe Bible falls silent on the issue of abortion. You couldn\'t find me a verse that directly condemns abortion if your life counted on it. And if the Bible is silent then what about theologians? Once again...nothing. \nKeep "cracking up"...I suppose it is the only thing you can do. | 0.25 |
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: Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids
Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century.
[1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
Candidate 1: "The state can work more effectively through the private sector
If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.
Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]
[1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, http://www.royalmailgroup.com/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation"
Candidate 2: "The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position."
Candidate 3: "Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries."
Candidate 4: "It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet
Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom."
Candidate 5: "State intervention would crowd out private firms
The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.
[1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel7&div=4&g_sent=1&collection=journals"
Candidate 6: "States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid."
Candidate 7: "Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector."
| States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.
|
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? | collectivism can be useful for instance in a group of people they will all have different strengths and ideas and therefore are better at solving problems | 1.0 |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | Under a blazing sun in early June, a group of pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were digging amid pine woods near the town of Krazny Liman. Their grizzled commander was a bearded man in his 50s who would not tell us where he was from, but acknowledged that he wasn't local. He was proud to show off his unit's most prized possession -- a truck-mounted anti-aircraft unit that was Russian-made. He told us the weapon had been seized from a Ukrainian base. A few miles away, in the town of Kramatorsk, rebel fighters displayed two combat engineering tanks they said they had seized them from a local factory. Eastern Ukraine has long been a center of weapons production. They had parked one of the tanks next to the town square. These were just two instances of how the rebels in eastern Ukraine were steadily adding more sophisticated weapons to their armory, including tanks, multiple rocket launchers -- and anti-aircraft systems. Kerry: 'Moment of truth' for Putin Kerry: 'Moment of truth' for Putin 01:15 Officials: 'Buk sent back to Russia' Officials: 'Buk sent back to Russia' 02:05 Who fired the Buk missile launcher? Who fired the Buk missile launcher? 02:03 Video appears to show black box from MH17 Video appears to show black box from MH17 01:03 Debris from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 sits in a field at the crash site in Hrabove, Ukraine, on September 9, 2014. The Boeing 777 was shot down July 17, 2014, over Ukrainian territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists. All 298 people on board were killed. In an October 2015 report, Dutch investigators found the flight was shot down by a warhead that fit a Buk rocket, referring to Russian technology, Dutch Safety Board Chairman Tjibbe Joustra said. Photos: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashes in Ukraine A diver searches for the jet's flight data recorders on July 18, 2014. Coal miners search the crash site. Wreckage from the Boeing 777 lies on the ground July 18, 2014. People search for bodies of passengers on July 18, 2014. A woman walks past a body covered with a plastic sheet near the crash site July 18, 2014. Belongings of passengers lie in the grass on July 18, 2014. People inspect the crash site on Thursday, July 17, 2014. People walk amid the debris at the site of the crash. Debris smoulders in a field near the Russian border. Fire engines arrive at the crash site. A man stands next to wreckage. Debris from the crashed jet lies in a field in Ukraine. Family members of those aboard Flight 17 leave Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam, Netherlands. A large piece of the plane lies on the ground. Luggage from the flight sits in a field at the crash site. A couple walks to the location at Schiphol Airport where more information would be given regarding the flight. Flight arrivals are listed at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang, Malaysia. Debris from the Boeing 777, pictured on July 17, 2014. A man inspects debris from the plane. Wreckage from the plane is seen on July 17, 2014. A man talks with security at Schiphol Airport on July 17, 2014. Wreckage burns in Ukraine. A man stands next to the wreckage of the airliner. People inspect a piece of wreckage believed to be from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. People inspect a piece of wreckage believed to be from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This image was posted to Twitter. A piece of wreckage believed to be Debris from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 sits in a field at the crash site in Hrabove, Ukraine, on September 9, 2014. The Boeing 777 was shot down July 17, 2014, over Ukrainian territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists. All 298 people on board were killed. In an October 2015 report, Dutch investigators found the flight was shot down by a warhead that fit a Buk rocket, referring to Russian technology, Dutch Safety Board Chairman Tjibbe Joustra said. Australian and Dutch experts examine the area of the crash on August 3, 2014. A woman walks with her bicycle near the crash site on August 2, 2014. Police secure a refrigerated train loaded with bodies of passengers from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 as it arrives in a Kharkiv, Ukraine, factory on July 22, 2014. A pro-Russian rebel passes wreckage from the crashed jet near Hrabove on Monday, July 21, 2014. Wreckage from the jet lies in grass near Hrabove on July 21, 2014. A man covers his face with a rag as members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Dutch National Forensic Investigations Team inspect bodies in a refrigerated train near the crash site in eastern Ukraine on July 21, 2014. Emergency workers carry a victim's body in a bag at the crash site on July 21, 2014. A piece of the plane lies in the grass in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region on July 21, 2014. An armed pro-Russian rebel stands guard next to a refrigerated train loaded with bodies in Torez, Ukraine, on Sunday, July 20, 2014. Ukrainian State Emergency Service employees sort through debris on July 20, 2014, as they work to locate the deceased. A woman covers her mouth with a piece of fabric July 20, 2014, to ward off smells from railway cars that reportedly contained passengers' bodies. Toys and flowers sit on the charred fuselage of the jet as a memorial on July 20, 2014. People search a wheat field for remains in the area of the crash site on July 20, 2014. A woman walks among charred debris at the crash site on July 20, 2014. Emergency workers load the body of a victim onto a truck at the crash site on Saturday, July 19, 2014. Emergency workers carry the body of a victim at the crash site on July 19, 2014. A large piece of the main cabin is under guard at the crash site on July 19, 2014. Victims' bodies are placed by the side of the road on July 19, 2014, as recovery efforts continue at the crash site. International officials lament the lack of a secured perimeter. A man looks through the debris at the crash site on July 19, 2014. An envelope bearing the Malaysia Airlines logo is seen at the crash site on July 19, 2014. Armed rebels walk past large pieces of the Boeing 777 on July 19, 2014. Ukrainian rescue workers walk through a wheat field with a stretcher as they collect the bodies of victims on July 19, 2014. A woman looks at wreckage on July 19, 2014. Pro-Russian rebels stand guard as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe delegation arrives at the crash site on Friday, July 18, 2014. A woman walks through the debris field on July 18, 2014. Pro-Russian rebels stand guard at the crash site. Wreckage from Flight 17 lies in a field in Shaktarsk, Ukraine, on July 18, 2014. A man covers a body with a plastic sheet near the crash site on July 18, 2014. The passengers and crew hailed from all over the world, including Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany and Canada. A diver searches for the jet's flight data recorders on July 18, 2014. Coal miners search the crash site. Wreckage from the Boeing 777 lies on the ground July 18, 2014. People search for bodies of passengers on July 18, 2014. A woman walks past a body covered with a plastic sheet near the crash site July 18, 2014. Belongings of passengers lie in the grass on July 18, 2014. People inspect the crash site on Thursday, July 17, 2014. People walk amid the debris at the site of the crash. Debris smoulders in a field near the Russian border. Fire engines arrive at the crash site. A man stands next to wreckage. Debris from the crashed jet lies in a field in Ukraine. Family members of those aboard Flight 17 leave Schiphol Airport near Amsterdam, Netherlands. A large piece of the plane lies on the ground. Luggage from the flight sits in a field at the crash site. A couple walks to the location at Schiphol Airport where more information would be given regarding the flight. Flight arrivals are listed at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang, Malaysia. Debris from the Boeing 777, pictured on July 17, 2014. A man inspects debris from the plane. Wreckage from the plane is seen on July 17, 2014. A man talks with security at Schiphol Airport on July 17, 2014. Wreckage burns in Ukraine. A man stands next to the wreckage of the airliner. People inspect a piece of wreckage believed to be from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. People inspect a piece of wreckage believed to be from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This image was posted to Twitter. A piece of wreckage believed to be from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. A piece of wreckage believed to be from MH17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. An airsickness bag believed to be from MH17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. A piece of wreckage believed to be from MH17. This image was posted to <a href="https://twitter.com/MatevzNovak" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. Debris from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 sits in a field at the crash site in Hrabove, Ukraine, on September 9, 2014. The Boeing 777 was shot down July 17, 2014, over Ukrainian territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists. All 298 people on board were killed. In an October 2015 report, Dutch investigators found the flight was shot down by a warhead that fit a Buk rocket, referring to Russian technology, Dutch Safety Board Chairman Tjibbe Joustra said. Australian and Dutch experts examine the area of the crash on August 3, 2014. A woman walks with her bicycle near the crash site on August 2, 2014. Police secure a refrigerated train loaded with bodies of passengers from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 as it arrives in a Kharkiv, Ukraine, factory on July 22, 2014. A pro-Russian rebel passes wreckage from the crashed jet near Hrabove on Monday, July 21, 2014. Wreckage from the jet lies in grass near Hrabove on July 21, 2014. A man covers his face with a rag as members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Dutch National Forensic Investigations Team inspect bodies in a refrigerated train near the crash site in eastern Ukraine on July 21, 2014. Emergency workers carry a victim's body in a bag at the crash site on July 21, 2014. A piece of the plane lies in the grass in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region on July 21, 2014. An armed pro-Russian rebel stands guard next to a refrigerated train loaded with bodies in Torez, Ukraine, on Sunday, July 20, 2014. Ukrainian State Emergency Service employees sort through debris on July 20, 2014, as they work to locate the deceased. A woman covers her mouth with a piece of fabric July 20, 2014, to ward off smells from railway cars that reportedly contained passengers' bodies. Toys and flowers sit on the charred fuselage of the jet as a memorial on July 20, 2014. People search a wheat field for remains in the area of the crash site on July 20, 2014. A woman walks among charred debris at the crash site on July 20, 2014. Emergency workers load the body of a victim onto a truck at the crash site on Saturday, July 19, 2014. Emergency workers carry the body of a victim at the crash site on July 19, 2014. A large piece of the main cabin is under guard at the crash site on July 19, 2014. Victims' bodies are placed by the side of the road on July 19, 2014, as recovery efforts continue at the crash site. International officials lament the lack of a secured perimeter. A man looks through the debris at the crash site on July 19, 2014. An envelope bearing the Malaysia Airlines logo is seen at the crash site on July 19, 2014. Armed rebels walk past large pieces of the Boeing 777 on July 19, 2014. Ukrainian rescue workers walk through a wheat field with a stretcher as they collect the bodies of victims on July 19, 2014. A woman looks at wreckage on July 19, 2014. Pro-Russian rebels stand guard as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe delegation arrives at the crash site on Friday, July 18, 2014. A woman walks through the debris field on July 18, 2014. Pro-Russian rebels stand guard at the crash site. Wreckage from Flight 17 lies in a field in Shaktarsk, Ukraine, on July 18, 2014. A man covers a body with a plastic sheet near the crash site on July 18, 2014. The passengers and crew hailed from all over the world, including Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Germany and Canada. In early June, they began to target Ukrainian planes and helicopters, with some success. The day after we met the commander in the pine woods, an Antonov AN-26 transport plane was brought down over nearby Slovyansk. Several Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters were also hit in this period, as was an Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plane near Luhansk -- it is about the size of a passenger jet. Forty-nine military personnel were killed when the IL-76 crashed short of the airport. For the most part, these aircraft were flying at relatively low altitudes, and were targeted by shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles and anti-aircraft guns. The pro-Russian rebels had taken control of several Ukrainian military depots and bases and stripped them of their weapons. The SA-7 was standard Soviet issue. Relatively easy to operate, it is effective to altitudes of some 2,500 meters (8,000 feet). But it and ZU 23-2 anti-aircraft batteries, which rebel units also obtained, are a world away from the SA-11 or "Buk" system that seems increasingly likely to have been used to shoot down Flight MH17 on Thursday. Stealing a Buk Could the pro-Russian rebels have acquired a serviceable Buk from a Ukrainian base and operated it? The evidence is circumstantial; a great deal of Ukrainian military hardware is in poor condition or redundant. But on June 29, rebels raided the Ukrainian army's A-1402 missile facility near Donetsk. Photographs show them examining what they found. The Russian website Vosti ran an article the same day titled "Skies of Donetsk will be defended by surface-to-air missile system Buk." The article claimed: "The anti-air defense point is one of the divisions of the missile corps and is equipped with motorized "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems." Peter Felstead, an expert on former Soviet military hardware at Janes IHS, says that "the Buk is in both the Russian and Ukrainian inventories, but it's unclear whether the one suspected in the shoot-down was taken by rebels when they overran a Ukrainian base, or was supplied by Russia." He told CNN that the Buk "would normally operate with a separate radar that picks up the overall air picture. This was almost certainly not the case with MH17," making it more difficult to identify the target and track its course. Among the pro-Russian rebels are fighters who served in the Russian army. It is possible that some were familiar with the Buk, but Felstead agrees with the U.S. and Ukrainian assessment that Russian expertise would have been needed to operate it. A birthday card found in a sunflower field near the crash site of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/specials/world/mh17-specials-page/index.html" target="_blank">Malaysia Airlines Flight 17</a> in eastern Ukraine, on Thursday, July 24. The passenger plane was shot down July 17 above Ukraine. All 298 people aboard were killed, and much of what they left behind was scattered in a vast field of debris. Photos: MH17: What they left behind Pieces of a wristwatch lie on a plastic cover at the crash site. A toy monkey. Books, bags, a tourist T-shirt. Ukraine's government said it had received reports of looting, and it urged relatives to cancel the victims' credit cards. But a CNN crew at the scene July 19 said it did not see any signs of looting. Passports were scattered across the large field. Playing cards and euros are seen at the crash site. A travel guide and toiletries. Luggage on Friday, July 18. An empty suitcase is cordoned off near the plane's impact site on Thursday, July 17. A birthday card found in a sunflower field near the crash site of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/specials/world/mh17-specials-page/index.html" target="_blank">Malaysia Airlines Flight 17</a> in eastern Ukraine, on Thursday, July 24. The passenger plane was shot down July 17 above Ukraine. All 298 people aboard were killed, and much of what they left behind was scattered in a vast field of debris. A classical music record is seen among the sunflowers on July 24. A shoe, appearing to be brand new, sits under foliage at the crash site. Two Dutch passports belonging to passengers lie in a field at the site of the crash on Tuesday, July 22. Clothing, sunglasses and chocolate are seen on July 22. More sunglasses and a travel guide lie in the field on July 22. A doll is seen on the ground on Saturday, July 19. A single shoe is seen among the debris and wreckage on July 19. There has been concern that the site has not been sealed off properly and that vital evidence is being tampered with. Pieces of a wristwatch lie on a plastic cover at the crash site. A toy monkey. Books, bags, a tourist T-shirt. Ukraine's government said it had received reports of looting, and it urged relatives to cancel the victims' credit cards. But a CNN crew at the scene July 19 said it did not see any signs of looting. Passports were scattered across the large field. Playing cards and euros are seen at the crash site. A travel guide and toiletries. Luggage on Friday, July 18. An empty suitcase is cordoned off near the plane's impact site on Thursday, July 17. A birthday card found in a sunflower field near the crash site of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/specials/world/mh17-specials-page/index.html" target="_blank">Malaysia Airlines Flight 17</a> in eastern Ukraine, on Thursday, July 24. The passenger plane was shot down July 17 above Ukraine. All 298 people aboard were killed, and much of what they left behind was scattered in a vast field of debris. A classical music record is seen among the sunflowers on July 24. A shoe, appearing to be brand new, sits under foliage at the crash site. Two Dutch passports belonging to passengers lie in a field at the site of the crash on Tuesday, July 22. Clothing, sunglasses and chocolate are seen on July 22. More sunglasses and a travel guide lie in the field on July 22. A doll is seen on the ground on Saturday, July 19. A single shoe is seen among the debris and wreckage on July 19. There has been concern that the site has not been sealed off properly and that vital evidence is being tampered with. 01 mh17 left behind 0724 02 mh17 left behind 0724 03 mh17 left behind 02 left behind 0722 03 left behind 0722 01 left behind 0722 01 left behind 0719 RESTRICTED 02 malaysia left behind sho 01 left behind 0718 RESTRICTED 02 left behind 0718 RESTRICTED 03 left behind 0718 RESTRICTED 04 left behind 0718 05 left behind 0718 06 left behind 0718 07 left behind 0718 left behind 01 RESTRICTED Entire family killed in MH17 crash Entire family killed in MH17 crash 03:07 Bodies being taken from crash site Bodies being taken from crash site 01:00 Dutch PM demands access to MH17 scene Dutch PM demands access to MH17 scene 01:03 "The system needs a crew of about four who know what they're doing. To operate the Buk correctly, Russian assistance would have been required unless the rebel operators were defected air defense operators - which is unlikely." It is now the "working theory" in the U.S. intelligence community that the Russian military supplied a Buk surface-to-air missile system to the rebels, a senior US defense official told CNN Friday. Russia has denied that any equipment in service with the Russian armed forces has crossed the border into Ukraine. And Aleksander Borodai, the self-described prime minister of the Donetsk People's Republic, said Saturday his forces did not have weapons capable of striking an aircraft at such a high altitude. But someone in the border region where eastern Ukraine meets Russia has been using an advanced anti-air missile system. Late Wednesday, the day before MH17 was presumably hit, a Ukrainian air force Sukhoi Su-25 combat jet was shot down close to the border with Russia. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry told CNN that the plane was flying at 6,200-6,500 meters (about 21,000 feet) and was hit near a town called Amvrosiivka, which is only some 30 kilometers (20 miles) from where MH17 was hit and 15 kilometers (10 miles) from the border with Russia. The Ukrainian military alleged the missile had been fired from Russian territory. It was the first time that a combat jet flying at high speed had been hit and came two days after an AN-26 -- flying at a similar altitude in the same area -- was shot down further north, in the Luhansk area. Smuggling on the black roads The Russian Defense Ministry said Friday that weapons could not be smuggled across the border "secretly." But they can. By early June, rebels controlled several crossings along a stretch of border more than 200 kilometers (125 miles) long. The border area is open farmland that was neither patrolled regularly nor even marked in many places. Dozens of unmonitored tracks known as black roads -- because they have been used for smuggling -- cross the border. Additionally, the Ukrainian border guard service was in disarray after an attack on its command center in Luhansk early in June. On the road east toward the border through the town of Antratsyt there was no sign of a Ukrainian military or police presence. The pro-Russian rebels had already begun to bring across heavy weapons at that point. A CNN team visited the border post at Marynivka in June, soon after a five-hour firefight involving border guards and members of the self-declared Vostok battalion of rebels who had been trying to bring over two Russian armored personnel carriers. They had been abandoned during the battle. The unknowns are these: Just how much weaponry has been brought in from Russia, how was it obtained, and did it include the SA-11 Buk? In June, the U.S. State Department claimed that three T-64 tanks, several rocket launchers and other military vehicles had crossed the Russian border. Ukraine made similar accusations, saying the weapons had gone to Snezhnoe, a rebel stronghold close to where MH17 came down. The State Department said the tanks had been in storage in south-west Russia, suggesting collusion between the Russian authorities -- at some level -- and the rebels. It said at the time that the equipment held at the storage site also included "multiple rocket launchers, artillery, and air defense systems." It added, notably, that "more advanced air defense systems have also arrived at this site." Moscow rejected the claims as fake. NATO has also released satellite images which, it said, showed tanks in the Rostov-on-Don region in Russia early in June, before they were taken to eastern Ukraine. The tanks had no markings. Even so, some experts, such as Mark Galeotti at New York University's Center for Global Affairs, say the evidence is largely circumstantial. NATO's images did not show the tanks actually crossing into Ukraine. Wherever they came from, Russian language websites soon featured calls for people with military skills to call a number associated with the separatist Donetsk People's Republic if they could help operate or maintain the tanks. One answered, "I served in the military engineering academy...and am a former commander in the intelligence." But the separatists' greatest vulnerability was always from the air. The Ukrainians had already shown, in driving them away from the Donetsk airport at the end of May, that they could use airpower to devastating effect. And they had begun to fly at higher altitudes to avoid shoulder-launched missiles. To hold what remained of their territory, the pro-Russian rebels needed to be able to challenge Ukrainian dominance of the skies. Whether they received help from across the border to do so, and in what way, is the question that governments around the world want answered. | pro-Russian rebels show off most prized possession a truck-mounted anti-aircraft unit that was Russian-made seized from a Ukrainian base combat engineering tanks seized them from a local factory rebels in eastern Ukraine were steadily adding more sophisticated weapons to their armory, including tanks, multiple rocket launchers -- and anti-aircraft systems The pro-Russian rebels had taken control of several Ukrainian military depots and bases and stripped them of their weapons and ZU 23-2 anti-aircraft batteries, which rebel units also obtained, rebels raided the Ukrainian army's A-1402 missile facility near Donetsk rebels controlled several crossings along a stretch of border more than 200 kilometers (125 miles) long unmonitored tracks known as black roads cross the border |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "in my country, except for a minor part of professional athletes, the majority of people stop playing games seriously as soon as they find a decent job", argumentative component 2: "more often, the pressure of work and family commitment force them to abandon their lifelong hobbies" | No |
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: one thing Richard Walker has noticed however is potentially the one thing that unifies both sides is a disillusionment in the current political leadership
Proposition2: at times like this as a humble shop keeper it's quite important to put your hands up and not profess to have any superior knowledge to what we all read in the papers or see on the TV | Default Conflict |
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: Jenni Murray would love to have a good life for so long as she may have left
Proposition2: Jenni Murray would love life to go back to normal | Default Inference |
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 manuscript describes a new protein disorder prediction web server that makes use of (shallow) convolutional neural networks.
There are already many disorder predictors, some of which are based upon deep convolutional neural network and can do prediction directly on amino acid sequence instead of sequence profile.
This manuscript does not have sufficient results to justify why one more web server for disorder prediction is needed.
Here are some concerns:
- Please compare with existing, similar methods.
- It is better to test the method on more recent CASP datasets and make sure that there is no redundancy between training and test data.
Ideally, a much larger test set shall be used to evaluate the method.
- AUC may not be a good metric for disorder prediction since the ratio of disordered residues is quite small.
Precision and Recall may be better.
- Existing work shall be cited. | Structure
Recap
Other
Weakness
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
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: Evolution
Quote: Actually, with more data that changes the number of assumptions required, it is possible to reach a greater degree of certainty about something. The greater degree of certainty you reach, the better you will be able to apply your findings.
Response: Oh boy, trying to tie Bayesian statistics to the number of assumptions! Nowhere in Bayesian analysis is there a term for number of assumptions.\nOnce again you are trying to tie number of assumptions to the correctness of a hypothesis. There is no such connection. It doesn't exist. In science, you only use data to evaluate hypotheses. In Bayesian analysis, each study represents more DATA, not a change in assumptions.\n | -1.0 |
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: AudienceMember 20210318QT14 thinks it is a reassuring thing to see police on our streets as a form of protection for us all
Proposition2: a very important factor is everybody would feel a lot safer if we had a more visible police presence on our streets | Default Rephrase |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: What is a very important skill a person should learn
Some people think that life is a struggle, which means we may encounter numerous difficulties during our lives. Accordingly, stress management, how to survive our unbearable stress, is the most important skill that we should have. Here are my reasons.
Stress, our body's way of responding to any kind of demand, can be caused by both good and bad experiences. Stress may be a positive mobilization to drive for success. However, it is widely thought that we experience stress any time, which comes across unexpectedly that frustrates our goals. As a result, if we don't have a good stress management skill, it may lead to some critical problems.
In the frenetic, fast-paced world, it is a very common predicament that all of us, from the young to the senior, feel depressed caused by stress, such as financial problems, exam stress, relationship difficulties and work overload. Some people regard stress as a power, which overcomes the obstacles to motivate themselves to do their best; other people cannot charge of their thoughts, emotions, and the way they deal with problems. Therefore, stress management recently becomes a more significant issue in our realization.
Furthermore, stress takes a toll on our health. It is known that the modern life is frequently full of hassles, frustrations, and demands. This is one of the reasons why people were overwhelmed by constant stress. Thus, some people have physical problems, such as insomnia and headaches. Melancholia, the most fatal problem, even leads some people to commit suicide. Consequently, it is necessary that we should reduce and cope with our stress in the goal of balancing our mind and body. To avoid being a pessimist, we may try to conquer our distress by sharing our worry with friends or families, doing exercise regularly, and trying to see our troubles in a different way.
For the above reasons, I believe that stress management is an essential skill for everyone to learn and find their own way to solve their stress. | stress management is an essential skill for everyone to learn and find their own way to solve their stress
stress management, how to survive our unbearable stress, is the most important skill that we should have
if we don't have a good stress management skill, it may lead to some critical problems
Stress, our body's way of responding to any kind of demand, can be caused by both good and bad experiences
Stress may be a positive mobilization to drive for success
it is widely thought that we experience stress any time, which comes across unexpectedly that frustrates our goals
stress management recently becomes a more significant issue in our realization
Some people regard stress as a power, which overcomes the obstacles to motivate themselves to do their best
other people cannot charge of their thoughts, emotions, and the way they deal with problems
In the frenetic, fast-paced world, it is a very common predicament that all of us, from the young to the senior, feel depressed caused by stress, such as financial problems, exam stress, relationship difficulties and work overload
some people have physical problems, such as insomnia and headaches
Melancholia, the most fatal problem, even leads some people to commit suicide
it is necessary that we should reduce and cope with our stress in the goal of balancing our mind and body
stress takes a toll on our health
This is one of the reasons why people were overwhelmed by constant stress
It is known that the modern life is frequently full of hassles, frustrations, and demands |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Mandatory opening up of the service sector to foreign suppliers has resulted in health, education and water services being run and controlled by profit-driven foreign corportations making them financially inaccessible to the local population. | Global trade rules put in place by Western nations over the past decades have disproportionately disadvantaged the Global South. |
Subsets and Splits