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: Battlefield Rape is a concern
A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is both sides attempting to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture. This ethnic cleansing often leads to systematic rape of women and mass murder of men. For example, in the Bosnian Wars of the early 1990s, systematic rape was carried out against all ethnic groups, but particular by ethnic Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. [1]
This could present a problem in the modern interventionist or peace-keeping activities of many military forces, third party combatants are often sent to the battlefields of conflicts that involve just this kind of ethnic cleansing. While it is unlikely that anything will happen to peacekeeping units if one side does turn on the peacekeepers it is likely that female soldiers will be treated the same as women from the enemy side if the rape mentality has been set in the minds of the soldiers.
[1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘Mass rape ruled a war crime’, The Guardian, 23 February 2001.
Candidate 1: "No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker.
In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man. [1]
[1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010."
Candidate 2: "The treatment of P.O.W.s is influenced by many factors, including their captor nation’s adherence to the Geneva Convention, discipline within the ranks of their captor army, whether the P.O.W. is expected to possess useful information and whether the captor army is concerned with their public image. The gender of the P.O.W. is likely to have a very small influence compared to these other factors. Upon entering the army, each applicant, male or female are aware of the risks and the possibility of being captured, even if that possibility is small, and are aware of what may occur while in captivity. By deciding to join, each person therefore agrees to understanding these risks and thus making a statement of acceptance.
Stories of P.O.W.s are compelling. They are likely to be used in propaganda campaigns whether or not female soldiers are involved. Had Jessica Lynch not been captured, the male soldiers probably would have been at the center of a similar campaign."
Candidate 3: "Male soldiers generally take just as much time off as female soldiers, in large part due to their greater alcohol and drug use. [1]
Of course this problem can be easily anticipated. Statistics on the number or female soldiers not available for call-up due to pregnancy can be used to factor in the phenomenon so that the military has enough personnel to deploy at any one time. This is already done for male soldiers not available for call-up due to injury. [2] Moreover this should not even be considered as not all women can or want to have children. In western states, it is more common for women to become career women and leave having children to later on in life; this would just as likely be the case with women in the military.
Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army.
[1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979.
[2] ibid"
Candidate 4: "It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. [1] As for the increase of females being discharged in the 1990’s, it is obvious that with an increase of people, the amount of those injured with also proportionally rise, whether male or female.
In order to accommodate to more females in the military, rather than integrating women into male combat units, all-female combat units could be created. These would engage in activities designed to suit women’s capabilities.
[1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27."
Candidate 5: "Clearly, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century – some of them, such as working in factories and many other roles as a result of war.
People involved in combat will attempt to protect each other, this is natural, and sometimes this kind of act is foolish. But this is something that already happens, involving women in the combat role will not make much difference. In addition, men can be informed that acting foolishly to protect women is unacceptable and reprimanded just as any soldier acting foolishly for any other reason would be. Soldiers can be taught what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse and how to react if they witness it or are victimized. Armies already take such incidents seriously and disciplinary procedures can be put in place to deal with any increases in such incidents in the short term as a result of the change.
There would be no difference in uniform or in how males and females would be treated, other than the different physical practice tasks, in order to encourage integration. The change to incorporating women in combat unites would mean that men and women would be given the same treatment so that they would come see each other as equal members of the military."
| No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker.
In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man. [1]
[1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010.
|
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: Not having children is environmentally friendly
The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment.
* Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006, http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=106
Candidate 1: "Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids."
Candidate 2: "Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.
*Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php
**Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html"
Candidate 3: "There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right."
Candidate 4: "There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading."
Candidate 5: "Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents."
Candidate 6: "There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary."
Candidate 7: "Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles."
Candidate 8: "People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society."
Candidate 9: "There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women."
Candidate 10: "Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness."
| Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.
|
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: subsidizing stay-at-home dads would cost too much money. it would cost money to subsidize plus the dads would not be paying the taxes they would if working.; Topic: We should subsidize stay-at-home dads | con |
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 table could be deleted, and the table information explained in the text.
- The names of all the hospitals are not necessary to mention.
- Please provide a picture from the CT scan if possible.
- Please discuss if the patient could be managed without the use of US and CT scans and just explore the incarcerated hernia.
- Please discuss if, based on available evidence, we could use the mesh in this situation.
- Please explain which structure was sutured to the conjoint tendon.
- Many details in the presentation and technique could be deleted. | Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: minimum wage
Stance: CON
Aspect: business | We 're not sure what will happen when they raise their prices again but this time around , many restaurants may decide to pass along these higher wages onto customers by raising menu prices and/or cutting back on staff hours so that they do n't make enough money to stay open ... which means fewer jobs and more uncertainty for employers who depend on good employees like chefs to run successful businesses . |
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: Not all schools have police available to protect them.
All schools and schoolchildren need to be protected yet not all schools are anywhere near a source of protection. Arming some teachers is most urgent in areas police provision is scarce due to diminished funds. Places like Harrold county in Texas have a sheriff’s office situated 17 miles away, and unlike more urban areas they cannot afford to hire district police officers. With the law enforcement officers so far away a lot of children could be killed before there could be any possibility of response from any police of law enforcement agencies. Arming teachers in predominantly rural areas of the USA is therefore a logical and necessary step to protect schools that do not already have dedicated protection. [1]
[1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2
Candidate 1: "This simply shows a need to either expand the law enforcement agencies or else have locals who are deputised. There is no need to turn schools into an armed environment in order to ensure that someone who is responsible who is armed is close enough to respond to any crisis at a school."
Candidate 2: "Teachers need protection just as much as students
An incident in Medford, Oregon in 2007 illustrated how teachers need to be able to protect themselves as well as their students. Gun lobbyists claimed teacher Jane Doe’s reasons for wanting to be armed while teaching were based on the restraining order against her ex-husband, who had made threats against her and her children. Although local laws dictated that only law enforcement officers could brings guns onto a school campus, she challenged it on the grounds of her own personal safety. [1] In a country like the USA where ordinary civilians can own guns, people often feel the need to carry arms for the sake of self-protection. If people are allowed to do this in their own homes, then if the threats persist while they are at work by extension they should still be allowed to exercise self-protection.
[1] Knickerbocker, Brad, ‘Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?’, Christian Science Monitor, 18 September 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p01s01-uspo.html"
Candidate 3: "The logical fallacy here is the assumption that teachers will always have pupils’ best interests at heart. There’s little to stop children from becoming extremely vulnerable if they are under the supervision of someone who could turn on them. Gun attacks like Columbine and Virginia Tech are often by people whose potential for violence was not spotted by anyone until it was too late. People in positions of authority are not always reliable or rational, and no amount of safety checks can guarantee that some teachers will not abuse the powers they have. This measure would simply increase the potential threat from those who have been authorised to carry guns in schools."
Candidate 4: "Children are impressionable
Allowing teachers to carry arms in school could mean that very young children could easily become acclimatised to the idea that carrying a gun and ultimately gun usage is ok. Surely the way to prevent incidents like Columbine from happening is to teach children about the potentially destructive and fatal consequences of gun usage? For elementary/primary school-age children, it would be difficult to separate the idea that it’s ok for teachers to always carry guns but not for anyone else."
Candidate 5: "Teachers in places where the scheme has already been piloted have received training from private security firms. In Harrold county, teachers have also been provided with special ammunition that avoids ricocheting and therefore minimises the threat of students being caught in crossfire. [1] Other schools in more urban parts of states like Texas, particularly those suffering a high level of gang violence, already have their own police forces. Many American schools are therefore used to having an environment where arms usage is the norm. It is therefore hard to argue that introducing armed protection in a different form, aka through teachers rather than police officers, would result in an increased level of risk.
[1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2"
Candidate 6: "The Second Amendment
When it comes down to it, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the American constitution. This right applies just as much to teachers as it does to anyone else. Having a right to bear arms means there is always going to the threat that one person can draw and use a weapon against another. The best way to counter-act such a danger is to meet it with equal means, as the culture of arms-bearing in the USA is too entrenched to try methods that involving scaling back gun-usage or enforcing much stricter arms control. Any attempt to do so would likely be struck down by the United States Supreme Court just as it declared the restrictions on handguns that were in place in Washington DC. [1] Therefore the best way to protect the most vulnerable in US society is to deploy the means that are encouraged and protected by the constitution.
[1] Supreme Court of the United States, ‘District of Columbia et al. v. Heller’, 26 June 2008, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf"
Candidate 7: "That teachers may also sometimes need protection does not alter the debate. They could equally be protected by having better police services and officers closer to schools. If teacher needs a gun for protection from someone threatening them then they are putting the children they are responsible for in danger. If Jane Doe’s ex husband had come after her and both had been armed her students could very easily have been caught in the crossfire."
Candidate 8: "The chances of accidents would be miniscule as teacher would be trained to carry the gun and would keep it with them at all times when in the classroom so there would be no chance of the students playing with the gun. The deterrence effect of having guns in school is likely to mean that the number of shootings will go down rather than up. Finally if it was an armed teacher who perpetrated the shooting then they would have been able to commit that atrocity regardless of whether s/he was allowed to carry a gun in school."
Candidate 9: "The opposition’s point is a rather speculative one, as you could apply this argument to teachers in general, or anyone in positions of power over more vulnerable groups, such as nurses or doctors. Just because a minority choose to abuse (such as with the paedophile scandals in reported in some public US high schools) [1] that does not mean everyone in the teaching profession should have the right to protect those in their care revoked.
[1] Irvine, Martha, and Tanner, Robert, ‘AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools’, The Washington Post, 21 October 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR200710..."
Candidate 10: "Arming teachers would mean safer schools
If school teachers, as people in positions of authority over vulnerable groups, were permitted to carry arms then it would guarantee greater protection for children. Incidents in recent years such as the massacre at Columbine High School have proven that a significant risk exists of school children gaining access to guns and using them against their classmates. The carnage could have been prevented if the teachers present had been able to defend themselves and the children in their care as teachers would be able to act as a first line of defence. [1] Furthermore, having schools as arms-free environments specifically makes them a target, those looking for targets are more likely to choose schools because they are less likely to meet armed resistance. Incidents include a school in Lincoln, Nebraska where a 17-year-old shot his vice-principal before killing himself. Lawmaker Mark Christensen, who had previously been opposed to teachers carrying arms, introduced legislation in January this year after the incident. [2] It illustrates how the potential for harm could be reduced if adults in responsible positions could defend themselves and those in their care.
[1] Hernandez, Selena, ‘Should Teachers Carry Guns On Campus’, CBS 11 News, 21 January 2011, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/21/should-teachers-carry-guns-on-campus/
[2] Huffington Post, ‘Teachers Carrying Guns: Nebraska Senator Mark Christensen Introduces Bill To Keep Schools Safe’, 18 January 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/nebraska-teachers-guns_n_811028.html"
Candidate 11: "How could arming teachers be regulated?
If teachers can bear arms, then what’s to stop other people in the school environment in contact with children, such as janitors, from demanding they should too, or even getting hold of them illicitly? Many of them won’t have been certified or checked, and as such there is no guarantee that the system of only allowing teaching staff to carry them could be fully regulated. This is particularly the case if janitors, cafeteria workers or cleaning staff have private gun licences of their own. The result is that children could be in an environment where those not licensed to carry arms around them would have greater opportunities to do so, thereby increasing the threat to children. It would be difficult to monitor which staff are bringing guns into school without a lot of investment in searches and detectors – money that could have paid for professional security. It is thus arguable that the proposition’s mechanism does not stand."
Candidate 12: "Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene.
[1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2"
Candidate 13: "Children would be caught in the crossfire
We need to remember that we’re most likely dealing with threats to young people by other young people here. If teachers were granted the right of ‘shoot to kill,’ as the mechanism would imply, of anyone they found threatening, the consequences to completely innocent people in a crossfire, or merely troubled youngsters that could be rehabilitated if simply subdued, could be tragic and fatal. Ultimately, teachers are not police officers and are thus not equipped to take out an armed criminal in the same way. As the legislative director of the Houston Association of Teachers out it, “We are trained to teach and educate – not to tame the Wild West.” [1]
[1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4"
Candidate 14: "Guns in schools might be used in circumstances other than defense.
Having guns in the classroom will more than likely increase the chances of gun related violence in schools. It would increase the chance of gun related accidents; although only a very small chance there would previously have been no chance. It may well also increase the number of shootings; people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot, [1] although there is no way of knowing if the effect would be the same in the classroom as on the street. Finally it is ignoring the possibility that those who are to carry guns for the school children’s protection may at some point turn the gun on their charges. Teaching can be a very frustrating job and the teacher may get very angry with individual students, allowing teachers to carry guns would greatly increase the risk of an unpremeditated shooting against on a schoolchild.
[1] Callaway, Ewen, ‘Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed’, NewScientist, 6 October 2009, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html"
Candidate 15: "Why shouldn’t they carry guns if teachers can? Surely in such uncertain situations as Columbine they should also carry the right to protect their classmates? Even if children aren’t legally meant to carry them anyway then what’s to stop moral gray areas from occurring in situations of self-protection for an entire class/school?
Taking this to its natural conclusion, what is to stop teachers’ guns simply falling into the wrong hands? A child could steal a teacher’s gun and use it against a classmate, causing unintentional or intentional fatalities, arming teachers simply makes such events possible rather than protecting against them. [1] The logic of trying to make schools less vulnerable to violent attacks by introducing more firearms is hugely flawed.
[1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=4"
| This simply shows a need to either expand the law enforcement agencies or else have locals who are deputised. There is no need to turn schools into an armed environment in order to ensure that someone who is responsible who is armed is close enough to respond to any crisis at a school.
|
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: Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery
Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh.
[1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18143078
[2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view
Candidate 1: "Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted. Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece."
Candidate 2: "A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.
A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support.
[1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232"
Candidate 3: "The current austerity measures are not working
The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity.
[1] Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9101397/Why-Greece-should-default-and-exit-the-euro.html"
Candidate 4: "The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference.
Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1]
[1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012510154748106118.html"
Candidate 5: "Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro."
Candidate 6: "A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone
A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members.
[1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view"
Candidate 7: "It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2]
[1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf
[2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/05/should-greece-exit-the-euro-zone-becker.html"
Candidate 8: "The situation in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal is not as extreme as that faced by Greece. It is therefore highly unlikely that a Greek default would have as severe a domino effect as the opposition suggests. Greece is the main source of political and economic uncertainty in the Eurozone, and their departure would ease the situation, facilitate investors and allow for the Eurozone to rally strongly. [1]
[1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf"
Candidate 9: "Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems
The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision.
[1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view"
Candidate 10: "Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece
There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen:
The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find.
The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3]
These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4]
[1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232
[2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf
[3] ibid
[4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18057232"
Candidate 11: "The proposition’s claims that the austerity measures have totally failed are unfounded. Although it is true that the total debt % GDP ratio has not gone down, this is not as serious as the prop make out. The budget deficit is the main problem that needs to come down because a consistently high budget deficit is what will make the situation spiral out of control and make Greece default on its debts. There is nothing per se problematic with having a large total debt (look at the USA’s total debt of $10 trillion, or Japan’s much higher debt to GDP ratio of 230% which unlike in Greece has not resulted in high interest rates,[1] for example). The fact that Greece’s budget deficit has gone down from 16% to 9% is an encouraging sign of improvement.
In addition, the proposition are not contentious in their claims about the negative effects of austerity. What they have failed to demonstrate, however, is why defaulting is the only solution to the suffering Greek people and the inability of the austerity measures to have their desired effect. The austerity measures have failed thus far because they have been targeted at the wrong areas of the economy and because the Greek Government has not been implementing them properly. Hitting the private sector with high taxation has done nothing to fix the faulty public sector which is the real cause of the debt crisis. The Greek Government remains hugely reluctant to carry out redundancies and wage cuts within the public sectors, as well as privitisations. [2] Greece, therefore, must be made to see that they must fulfill their promises and actually tackle the public sector, while alleviating taxation from the private sector.
[1] Free Exchange, ‘Defying gravity’, 14 August 2012, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/08/fiscal-sustainability
[2] Babbington, Deepa: “Greek PM sings in tune, now must hit the hard notes”, Septembe 5 2012, e-kathimerini, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_04/09/2012_459620"
Candidate 12: "Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.
Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term.
[1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/greece-euro-single-currency-expert-view
[2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf"
Candidate 13: "In receiving financial support from the ECB and European Commission to prevent the escalation of a major banking collapse in Greece, the Greek Government would be expected to continue with reforms of the public sector. What’s more, defaulting would grant the Greek Government more time to implement such reforms, making them more likely to succeed and less painful on the Greek populous. The oppositions fears are, therefore, unfounded."
| The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference.
Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1]
[1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012510154748106118.html
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Legalising sex work will normalise sex by allowing it to be sold and purchased like any other service is. | Legalising sex work will reduce stigmas surrounding sex and sexuality. |
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? | if children are working as actors then it must impact their education as they wont be able to concentrate on their studies ? | 0.459929311 |
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: Equality is not defined by you or me. It is defined by the Creator who created men.
Response: Actually I think it is defined by the creator who created all women :p\nBut in reality your opinion is gibberish. Equality is, like every other word, defined by the people who use the language. Currently it means "the same". People aren\'t equal because they are not all the same. Any attempt to argue otherwise is a display of gross stupidity. | -0.714286 |
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. | When reading articles regarding U.S torture, you are almost guaranteed to find adjectives such as “brutal,” “harsh,” and “extreme” used to describe the torture by the CIA at Guantanamo (Mirkinson, 2014). Of course, we can’t forget the “enhanced interrogation” phrase that many also like to throw around. Though the findings of the CIA Senate Torture Report concludes that the actions at Guantanamo were indeed torture, it continues to be difficult to find a news outlet that will use the forbidden “t” word. With the release of the senate report there was naturally an influx of articles and news reports on Guantanamo. Jack Mirkinson of the Huffington Post explains that though the information is newly released, what isn’t new is “the media’s persistent dance around the word at the heart of the entire story: ‘torture’” (Mirkinson, 2014). He references one study, which found that when the Bush administration began using waterboarding as an interrogation method, many major media outlets stopped defining the practice as torture (Mirkinson, 2014). Mirkinson provides examples of some of the country’s largest news outlets, including MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, all of which avoided using the word torture (Mirkinson, 2014). Where the word torture is most commonly found is in alternative news outlets such as Truthout, a nonprofit organization “dedicated to providing independent news and commentary on a daily basis” (Ahmed, 2014). In an article titled, The United States Is Committing Brutal Acts of Torture Right Now, Truthout writer Nafeez Ahmed writes, “Media coverage of the Senate report has largely whitewashed the extent to which torture has always been an integral and systematic intelligence practice since the Second World War…” (Ahmed, 2014). AlternativeNews, The Real News Network, and AlterNet are all additional independent news outlets that not only use the word torture but also explicitly call out mainstream media for failing to do so. The problem remains though, that a large portion, I would suspect the majority, of Americans rely on mainstream news outlets for their information. The Double Standard The rhetoric used by the U.S mainstream media in regards to foreign torture, on the other hand, is almost astonishing. One New York Time’s headline reads, Organizations Say Torture Is Widespread in Libya Jails (Stack, 2012). A Washington Post article claims, China must be pressed to end torture by police (Wang, 2015). The list can continue for pages, with no hesitation from U.S news outlets to use the word torture when referring to other countries. What is particularly interesting is the lack of consistency in U.S reporting. A study from the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard reveals a significant shift in the way that U.S news outlets have covered torture. From the 1930’s until 2004, newspapers that reported on waterboarding almost always considered it torture; “The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles” (Linkins, 2010). Following 2002 (around the time when the Bush administration began implementing waterboarding), those same newspapers rarely referred to waterboarding as torture; “The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 1.4% of articles. The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles. The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1.6% of articles. USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture” (Linkins, 2010). When it comes to other countries’ use of waterboarding, the study showed no reluctance to use the “t” word: In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles when the United States was the perpetrator (Linkins, 2010). Development and Torture Spain and New Zealand join the United States in the group of developed countries that use torture (Gallagher, 2014 & Brooking, 2014). Additionally, the Human Rights Watch has accused France, Germany and the United Kingdom of using intelligence that was gathered by using torture (“No Questions,” 2010). There are, of course, numerous other developed countries that use torture but receive minimal attention (Noack, 2014). Why then, is there little mainstream media coverage of these developed, particularly Western, countries? It seems that Western, especially American, news outlets are the groups afraid to call Western torture what it truly is. CJ Werlemen, a writer for the Middle East Eye, has no hesitation in calling out the U.S, writing, “Americans are pro-torture and proud of it” (Werleman, 2016). An article in the Iran Daily is titled, Guantanamo prisoner recounts ordeal, tortured by guards (“Guantanamo prisoner,” 2016). To my surprise, alongside Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Burundi, China, Vietnam, Syria, Eritrea, and Iran, the United Nations Human Rights Council recently called out the U.S and U.K for torture (“United Nations,” 2016). Other organizations and media outlets, though, place a much larger emphasis on developing, non-Western countries that torture. One article by The Guardian is titled, Afghanistan officials sanctioned murder, torture and rape, says report (Graham-Harrison, 2015). Even Amnesty International uses different rhetoric when discussing U.S torture versus discussing other countries that torture. Their headline for U.S torture reads, for example, U.S Needs Accountability for Torture (“Demand Accountability”). Their Mexico torture campaign, on the other hand, reads, Torture in Mexico is Out of Control, followed by horrific descriptions of Mexican torture (“Police and soldiers”). “Out of Control” is quite a powerful phrase and creates a very specific picture of Mexican torture. Amnesty’s current torture campaign states that their “priority countries” are Mexico, the Philippines, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, coincidentally all non-Western countries (“Global Campaign”). The studies, headlines, and articles show a clear focus on torture in developing, non-Western countries. Though torture occurs in countless developed nations, there is a lack of demand for developed, Western countries’ accountability. The rhetoric surrounding torture in developing, non-Western countries convey barbarism and ruthlessness while weaker words such as “brutal,” “enhanced,” or “harsh” are used to describe Western torture. This language choice is powerful, influencing perceptions and ultimately categorization. Though the same actions may be occurring in two different countries, the way in which each is portrayed impacts the public’s tolerance for those actions. Hearing that the U.S is using enhanced interrogation, for example, is much different than hearing that torture in Mexico is out of control. This discrepancy determines which countries get demonized and which countries are left to perpetrate torture behind closed doors. Hearing “out of control” conveys urgency, but isn’t the CIA’s torture at Guantanamo also “out of control?” When the media, activist organizations, and news sources stop considering an action to be torture, is that action no longer torture? Why does media portrayal appear to supersede international law? Perhaps most importantly, why are developing, non-Western countries portrayed as savage, while developing countries are also committing horrific acts? | articles regarding U.S torture , it continues to be difficult to find a news outlet that will use the “t” word when the Bush administration began using waterboarding as an interrogation method, many major media outlets stopped defining the practice as torture Media coverage of the Senate report has largely whitewashed the extent to which torture has always been an integral and systematic intelligence practice since the Second World War The problem remains though, that a large portion, of Americans rely on mainstream news outlets for their information. The Double Standard The rhetoric used by the U.S mainstream media in regards to foreign torture, is almost astonishing no hesitation from U.S news outlets to use the word torture when referring to other countries. When it comes to other countries’ use of waterboarding, the study showed no reluctance to use the “t” word 85.8% of articles that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% did so when the United States was responsible The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles when the United States was the perpetrator Western news outlets are the groups afraid to call Western torture what it truly is Americans are pro-torture and proud of it The studies, headlines, and articles show a clear focus on torture in developing, non-Western countries Though torture occurs in countless developed nations, there is a lack of demand for developed, Western countries’ accountability The rhetoric surrounding torture in developing, non-Western countries convey barbarism and ruthlessness while weaker words such as “brutal,” “enhanced,” or “harsh” are used to describe Western torture. This language choice is powerful, influencing perceptions and ultimately categorization Though the same actions may be occurring in two different countries, the way in which each is portrayed impacts the public’s tolerance for those actions Hearing that the U.S is using enhanced interrogation much different than hearing that torture in Mexico is out of control When the media, activist organizations, and news sources stop considering an action to be torture, is that action no longer torture? why are developing, non-Western countries portrayed as savage, while developing countries are also committing horrific acts? |
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? | killing whales is a barbaric practice. | 0.670868224 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: A state that outlaws murder cannot then turn around and murder prisoners in the name of the law. It is perverse and unjust.; Topic: We should abolish capital punishment | pro |
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 : James are you getting the 9 thousand
Proposition: James is or is not getting the 9 thousand pounds | Pure Questioning |
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: How can a museum about creationism show "Fossil" collections? Aren;t those more about supporting evolution? I am very puzzled!
Response: Fossils are evidence, not theory. They can be used in the construction of any theory, including creationism. Whether this is 'just' or not, is another issue. I point this out as many seem confused about evidence, and think that it just points to something without interpretation | 0.0 |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | entrapment should be legal because it catches criminals that were already looking to commit the crime anyway. | 0.978514495 |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Reservations in Canada receive great sums from the federal government. I realize this is in part of treaties from the 1800s that stated the Canadian government should be financially responsible for native Americans to provide the same programs taxpayers receive. The amount of money natives receive has been growing and yet I hear constantly in the news that they require even more. I've also heard anecdotes about native teens receiving substantial financial aide after graduating high school. Why is this still continuing to such a large degree? I'm clearly missing some information as to why it's fair for them to receive others taxpayer money and tax breaks because of The British colonization. I realize terrible things were done to their people like residential schools but it's been rectified. This kind of thing doesn't go on anymore and hasn't for a long time. Why are they still receiving such huge funding while others struggle without any substantial government aid? | Why the government should continue funding native reservations and First Nations people in the way they do. |
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
AutoAnnotate is a Cytoscape app that can make complex networks easier to interpret by clustering nodes and labelling the clusters with relevant terms.
Clusters can be collapsed into single nodes, greatly simplifying the network.
The app is easy to use and allows configuration of quite of number of settings.
The clusters are labelled based on the most frequent words in a (configurable) node column, using functionality from the WordCloud app.
The proper labelling of the clusters can require some toying with the parameters and manual curation, both in AutoAnnotate and WordCloud.
For instance, using the AlzheimerEM.cys network from the WordCloud tutorial a cluster was labelled with the terms “interphase cycle”, where “cell cycle” would be more appropriate.
The word “cell” was omitted due to the default “Normalize” setting of the WordCloud app that prevented very frequent words to be present in a label.
Lowering this setting from 0.5 to 0.3 changed the label to “cell cycle”.
This is described in the quite elaborate AutoAnnotated User Guide.
I have also tested the app with the SeedNet network (http://netvis.ico2s.org/dev/seednet/#/static/Data) which is a co-expression network that has 8,621 nodes with 502,173 interactions.
The nodes were pre-clustered with MCODE into 136 clusters.
It took AutoAnnotate a few minutes to annotate the clusters (on a MBP 2012), which is acceptable, and then about 10 seconds to generate a summary network.
The produced cluster labels were based on the annotation of the clustered genes.
The labels were not very informative because there were hardly any common words in the annotations.
This was obvious from the words in the labels, and from the output of the WordCloud app for a cluster.
For a future version of the app it might be an idea to scale the font of the label by the frequency of the chosen words (now the font can be scaled by the cluster size), to indicate how descriptive a label is for a certain cluster.
The manuscript is well written and to the point.
In the following two lines the plural “they” refers to the singular “user”:
“The USER may create as many Annotation Sets as THEY like, and can easily switch between them.”
AutoAnnotate is a useful addition to the collection of Cytoscape apps, and will undoubtedly help many users to create an informative summary of a complex network. | Structure
Strength
Strength
Strength
Recap
Weakness
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Weakness
Other
Todo
Strength
Weakness
Recap
Strength |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate with stance opposite to the given argument are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all counters to the argument’s stance. | Argument: It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre
The first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.” [1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped.
There were significant other factors in play as well. Before the second bomb was dropped the Japanese had learnt of the Soviet attack which dashed their last hopes of mediation for a favourable settlement and they were not optimistic of their chances in that conflict, even the army’s planners expected Manchukuo’s capital Changchun would fall in two weeks. [2] Although the Cabinet was deadlocked 3 to 3 this was the case both before and after the news of Nagasaki came in, the point of fact that the US had more than one bomb although a shock to those opposed to surrender did not alter their position. Ultimately the Emperor was forced to intervene on the side of the proponents of peace, his mind had been made up even before the first bomb. It is arguable that Hiroshima was necessary to push him into acting, which was unprecedented but the Nagasaki bombing was entirely superfluous. Historian Sadao Asada’s opinion is that the second bomb was unnecessary. [3]
[1] Emperor Hirohito quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism p.33.
[2] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.36.
[3] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, pp.38, 41-2.
Candidate 1: "Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]
The Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.
[1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.
[2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp
[3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol_to_Hague_Convention
[4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf?PHPSESSID=61c346606e8c49..."
Candidate 2: "Offering the preservation of the Monarchy was unlikely to have altered the outcome of the conflict by bringing peace before August 6th. This was the only concession to the Japanese that was even considered by the US government. It was thought that even this would be very hard for the American public to swallow. Truman’s personal feeling was also that nothing short of an unconditional surrender would do to avenge Pearl Harbour. [1]
[1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) p.291."
Candidate 3: "The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]
[1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.
[2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40."
| The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]
[1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.
[2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40.
|
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. | Anti-war feminism rejects the conception of war as a discrete event, with clear locations, and a beginning and an end. It is not that we fail to distinguish between war and peace, or make distinctions between kinds of violence; but in our vision, and in contrast to much just war theory, it is crucial to not separate war from either the preparations made for it (preparations taken in the widest possible, including the social costs of maintaining large standing armies and the machinery of deterrence), or from its long term physical, psychological, socio-economic, environmental, and gendered effects. This conception of war is sometimes explicit in feminist writings, typically implied by the rhetoric and symbols of feminist movements, and fundamental to our response to conference questions.14 Women’s war and post-war stories underline the unboundedness of war in at least two different dimensions: cultural and practical. Culturally, war is understood as a creation and creator of the culture in which it thrives. War’s violence is not understood as separate and apart from other social practices. There is a continuum of violence running from bedroom, to boardroom, factory, stadium, classroom and battlefield, “traversing our bodies and our sense of self.”15 Weapons of violence, and representations of those weapons, travel through interlocking institutions – economic, political, familial, technological and ideological. These institutions prepare some people but not others to believe in the effectiveness of violence, to imagine and acquire weapons, to use and justify using force to work their will. They prepare some but not others to renounce, denounce or passively submit to force, to resist or accept the war plans put before them. Practically, feminists see war as neither beginning with the first gunfire, nor ending when the treaties are signed. Before the first gunfire is the research, development and deployment of weapons; the maintaining of standing armies; the cultural glorification of the power of armed force; and the social construction of masculinities and femininities which support a militarized state. When the organized violence of war is over, what remains is a ripped social fabric: the devastation of the physical, economic and social infrastructure through which people provision themselves and their families; the havoc wrought in the lives and psyches of combatants, noncombatants, and children who have grown up in war; the surfeit of arms on the streets, and of ex-soldiers trained to kill; citizens who have been schooled and practiced in the methods of violence, but not in nonviolent methods of dealing with conflict; “nature” poisoned, burned, made ugly and useless.16 Typically ‘peace’ includes official ongoing “punishment”—retribution, reparations, domination, and deprivation. At best, even the most laudable treaty is only the beginning of making peace. | There is a continuum of violence Weapons of violence, and representations of those weapons, travel through interlocking institutions – economic, political, familial, technological and ideological. These institutions prepare some people but not others to believe in the effectiveness of violence, to imagine and acquire weapons, to use and justify using force to work their will. They prepare some but not others to renounce, denounce or passively submit to force, to resist or accept the war plans put before them. Practically, feminists see war as neither beginning with the first gunfire, nor ending when the treaties are signed. development and deployment of weapons; the maintaining of standing armies; the cultural glorification of the power of armed force; and the social construction of masculinities and femininities which support a militarized state. the devastation of the physical, economic and social infrastructure th the surfeit of arms on the streets, and of ex-soldiers trained to kill; citizens who have been schooled and practiced in the methods of violence, but not in nonviolent methods of dealing with conflict; “nature” poisoned, burned, made ugly and useless.16 Typically ‘peace’ includes official ongoing “punishment”—retribution, reparations, domination, and deprivation. At best, even the most laudable treaty is only the beginning of making peace. |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: we should end all economic sanctions because they cause harm to both countries by preventing free trade which in turn will cause an economic downturn.; Topic: We should end the use of economic sanctions | pro |
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? | minors sometimes might need cosmetic surgery if they have been badly burned or have a birthmark that causes pain and suffering. | 0.910201837 |
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: Telephones and emails have made personal communication less required
There are many advantage of these invention, telephones and email. Communication between people by using telephones and email made my life easier. I personally disagree with this notion that these types of communication, telephones and email, made people less personal. I will give several reasons to support my opinion.
To begin with, telephones and email help people, who live far away from other people, to connect each other. Unlike email, send message by using mail service could be lost and could be sent to wrong address. I can using telephones and email to talk or write directly to people I want to connect with. For example, right now, I am in the U.S. It is not possible to have conversation in person with my parents, who live in my country. Consequently, I can make a phone call or write email to my parents whenever I want. Telephones and email made me feel close to my parents.
Second, using telephones and email could express some important words better than face-to-face communication. For instant, sometime when I argue with my friends, I cannot express my self to my friends at that moment. So, when I have a time to realize what had happened, I could explain the real thought that I want to express without emotion. Thus, these types of communications make me feel personal.
Telephones and email make me feel personal because I could directly connect with people that I love. Beside, I could express my personal thought through telephones and email. As a result, I believe that telephones and email do not make communication between people less personal.
Argumentative components: I personally disagree with this notion that these types of communication, telephones and email, made people less personal
Communication between people by using telephones and email made my life easier
Unlike email, send message by using mail service could be lost and could be sent to wrong address
I can using telephones and email to talk or write directly to people I want to connect with
I can make a phone call or write email to my parents whenever I want
It is not possible to have conversation in person with my parents, who live in my country
Telephones and email made me feel close to my parents
telephones and email help people, who live far away from other people, to connect each other
using telephones and email could express some important words better than face-to-face communication
sometime when I argue with my friends, I cannot express my self to my friends at that moment
when I have a time to realize what had happened, I could explain the real thought that I want to express without emotion
these types of communications make me feel personal
telephones and email do not make communication between people less personal
Telephones and email make me feel personal
I could directly connect with people that I love
I could express my personal thought through telephones and email | Major claims:
I personally disagree with this notion that these types of communication, telephones and email, made people less personal
telephones and email do not make communication between people less personal
Claims:
I personally disagree with this notion that these types of communication, telephones and email, made people less personal
Communication between people by using telephones and email made my life easier
telephones and email help people, who live far away from other people, to connect each other
using telephones and email could express some important words better than face-to-face communication
telephones and email do not make communication between people less personal
Telephones and email make me feel personal
Premises:
Unlike email, send message by using mail service could be lost and could be sent to wrong address
I can using telephones and email to talk or write directly to people I want to connect with
I can make a phone call or write email to my parents whenever I want
It is not possible to have conversation in person with my parents, who live in my country
Telephones and email made me feel close to my parents
sometime when I argue with my friends, I cannot express my self to my friends at that moment
when I have a time to realize what had happened, I could explain the real thought that I want to express without emotion
these types of communications make me feel personal
I could directly connect with people that I love
I could express my personal thought through telephones and email |
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: Legalisation reduces crime
The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate.
[1] Kington, Tom, ‘Italian police raids reveal how an 80-year-old gangster held sway over the feared Calabrian mafia’, The Observer, 18 July 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/18/ndrangheta-mafia-italy-police
Candidate 1: "If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.
[1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’, http://www.the-tma.org.uk/policy-legislation/tobacco-smuggling-crossbord..."
Candidate 2: "Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure.
To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs:
“Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure.
Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage.
Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1]
[1] Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, ‘Effects of Alcohol and Drugs on your Health’, University of North Carolina, http://www.med.unc.edu/alcohol/prevention/health.html"
Candidate 3: "Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well."
Candidate 4: "Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.
The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people."
Candidate 5: "When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it.
[1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002, http://www.parl.gc.ca/committeebusiness/StudyActivityHome.aspx?Cmte=SNUD&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2&Stac=626199
[2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010, http://www.eurocare.org/library/latest_news/92_9_of_spanish_students_say..."
Candidate 6: "This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs. [1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children. [2]
This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms.
Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement.
[1] BBC News, ‘Drugs cost society £18.8bn’, 12 February 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1816215.stm
[2] National Drug Intelligence Center, ‘The Impact of Drugs on Society’, National Drug Threat Assessment 2006, January 2006, http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/impact.htm"
Candidate 7: "Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations."
Candidate 8: "In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale."
Candidate 9: "Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1]
[1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’, http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/01so.htm"
Candidate 10: "Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]
[1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010, http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html"
| Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]
[1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010, http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html
|
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: And because marriage is a government institution then they cannot discriminate against same sex couples and must provide the same benefits to them as is provided to straight couples. And it cannot be a separate institution either because separate is not equal.
Response: And upon what grounds do you base this claim? Government chooses not to recognize different types of marriages all the time, not just same sex marriages ie. polygamist marriages, relatives, age limits, etc. These recognitions are not only federal but vary state to state, for instance some states recognize 1st cousin marriages while others don't, as I recall, the age of consent to marry also differs among states.\n | 0.0 |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | Banning cosmetic surgery for minors will create an unregulated black market that will be more physically dangerous. | 0.866333622 |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: flag burning prohibition is silly. it's just a piece of cloth with an assigned symbol and connotation. prohibition certainly seems to fly in the face of "freedom of expression."; Topic: We should prohibit flag burning | con |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, decide to what degree (between 0 and 100) the response is sarcastic. 0 means not sarcasic and 100 means very sarcastic. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: And if you\'ve ever read any of the speeches by PP\'s founder, you\'d also know that every child should be a WHITE CHILD, too. She was an extreme racist and started PP as a means of stopping the increasing number of poor blacks. There was no altruism involved in PP\'s "birth".
Response: And? What relevance does this have to PP today? | 0.0 |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Some pro-life activists will approach individual pregnant women in their community and attempt to convince them not to undergo abortion, which is more intrusive than doing so at the abortion clinic. | Introducing protest-free zones will lead to more radical and violent forms of protest. |
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 bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land
The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities. Furthermore, the way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are 'rotated' between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance.
Candidate 1: "The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough."
Candidate 2: "Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing."
Candidate 3: "The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1.
1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:"
| The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough.
|
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | You have to be at the right place at the right moment in time. Many successful entrepreneurs will tell you that timing was essential. Which basically means luck. | Nope. The richest would be the ones with the highest income, which very often has nothing to do with intelligence. |
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: Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children
As explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children.
The existence of marriage is essentially saying that same-sex couples and single parents are less able of raising children than heterosexual couples. Marriage, therefore, can be seen to promote outdated ideals that our society no longer holds and, as such, is itself an outdated institution.
Candidate 1: "Marriage is an important institution to religious people
Nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated."
Candidate 2: "Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.
Marriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)"
Candidate 3: "Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.
The proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country."
Candidate 4: "Once a couple get married, they have made an official and legal commitment, which makes it more difficult for them to split up. This means that, irrespective of divorce statistics, adding marriage to a relationship will only serve to make it more stable and give the children of that relationship more security. Therefore marriage still gives benefits in modern society and is not outdated. (Waite 2000)"
Candidate 5: "Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage
50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated."
Candidate 6: "The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent.
Some people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way."
Candidate 7: "The purpose of marriage is not an eternal, unrelenting union, whether it is wanted or not. The purpose of marriage is to foster a more stable relationship than would be possible without marital vows. Therefore, the fact that divorce is becoming more common and easier to obtain does not undermine the institution of marriage at all."
Candidate 8: "Marriage promotes a better way to raise children
Marriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated."
Candidate 9: "This argument only works under the assumption that we live in a society where divorce does not exist. If a person enters into a marriage without full awareness of what they have committed to and later need to get out of that marriage, they are free to.
Being able to leave a marriage, though, does not make marriage a meaningless charade, as the proposition claims. It is still more difficult to leave a marriage than it is to leave a non-marital committed relationship and so it makes a big difference."
Candidate 10: "Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship
Marriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an "age-old institution" that is "by longstanding definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society."
| The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent.
Some people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way.
|
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: I believe it is a good idea to build a large shopping center in our community
I believe that it is a good idea to build a large shopping center in our community. The following are my reasons.
In the first place, the establishment of a large shopping center will provide the residents a more convenient place to go shopping. Here is a positive example: Queens Center Mall, a shopping mall located in Queens borough of New York City, provides a wide vairtey of stores, products and services, from clothing to electronics and restaurants, that consumers can choose. It is widely thought that it is one of the most productive malls in New York. I found that I could find virtually every brand or store, including Macy's and JCPenney, when I visited there. As far as I am concerned, a large shopping mall provides a location for residents to pursue during their leisure time.
Furthermore, it not only provides a place to shop but also offer people jobs. There may be a great number of job vacancies in the need of opening the new stores in the shopping mall. It could be an opportunity for people who are looking for a part-time job or a full time job. Some students and retirees may work there in order to whiling away their free time and earning money.
Lastly, it is more likely for us to buy goods in lower price in the shopping center, and save our time on the other hand. There may be a competition between the new shopping center and other existing stores to attract the customers. Accordingly, with sales promotion, it is easy for consumers to compare the price of the same merchandise before they buy. In addition, the residents do not have a problem spending time on commute in the hope of setting up a shopping center near their homes.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I advocate building a big shopping center in my neighborhood, which will be beneficial to our community.
Argumentative components: it is a good idea to build a large shopping center in our community
the establishment of a large shopping center will provide the residents a more convenient place to go shopping
Queens Center Mall, a shopping mall located in Queens borough of New York City, provides a wide vairtey of stores, products and services, from clothing to electronics and restaurants, that consumers can choose
it is one of the most productive malls in New York
I could find virtually every brand or store, including Macy's and JCPenney, when I visited there
a large shopping mall provides a location for residents to pursue during their leisure time
it not only provides a place to shop but also offer people jobs
There may be a great number of job vacancies in the need of opening the new stores in the shopping mall
It could be an opportunity for people who are looking for a part-time job or a full time job
Some students and retirees may work there in order to whiling away their free time and earning money
it is more likely for us to buy goods in lower price in the shopping center, and save our time on the other hand
There may be a competition between the new shopping center and other existing stores to attract the customers
with sales promotion, it is easy for consumers to compare the price of the same merchandise before they buy
the residents do not have a problem spending time on commute in the hope of setting up a shopping center near their homes
I advocate building a big shopping center in my neighborhood, which will be beneficial to our community | Major claims:
it is a good idea to build a large shopping center in our community
I advocate building a big shopping center in my neighborhood, which will be beneficial to our community
Claims:
it is a good idea to build a large shopping center in our community
a large shopping mall provides a location for residents to pursue during their leisure time
it not only provides a place to shop but also offer people jobs
it is more likely for us to buy goods in lower price in the shopping center, and save our time on the other hand
I advocate building a big shopping center in my neighborhood, which will be beneficial to our community
Premises:
the establishment of a large shopping center will provide the residents a more convenient place to go shopping
Queens Center Mall, a shopping mall located in Queens borough of New York City, provides a wide vairtey of stores, products and services, from clothing to electronics and restaurants, that consumers can choose
it is one of the most productive malls in New York
I could find virtually every brand or store, including Macy's and JCPenney, when I visited there
There may be a great number of job vacancies in the need of opening the new stores in the shopping mall
It could be an opportunity for people who are looking for a part-time job or a full time job
Some students and retirees may work there in order to whiling away their free time and earning money
There may be a competition between the new shopping center and other existing stores to attract the customers
with sales promotion, it is easy for consumers to compare the price of the same merchandise before they buy
the residents do not have a problem spending time on commute in the hope of setting up a shopping center near their homes |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: stupid | I think this whole thing with clones was pretty pointless because they are all basically the same person so there really isnt any difference between them other then their looks which can easily be changed ( like Naruto does ) but still its kind of stupid when you look at narutos chakra and compare it to kakashi who has no form whatsoever except for 1 big ball shaped hole where his mouth should be on top of his head . |
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: Evolutionists like to think that Selection can reverse the effects of biological decay. They\xe2\x80\x99ve argued this for decades.
Response: True.\n | 0.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All counters in the same debate irrespective of their stance are candidates. The task is to find the best counterargument among all on-topic arguments phrased as counters. | Argument: Distance
The Falkland Islands are 8000 miles from the UK – in the modern age it is absurd that one country can claim sovereignty over land halfway across the globe from it.
The needs and wishes of the Falkland islanders would be much better served if the government responsible for them was local.
Candidate 1: "If Britain did not have legitimate sovereignty over the Falklands to begin with then it is illegitimate for Britain to hand that sovereignty over to the islanders."
Candidate 2: "It would not be possible for the UK to argue that it has a claim through prescription and the length of occupation because the original taking over the Argentine colony was not legitimate, as the islands were not res nullis.
In the Chamizal Case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States because "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents." [1]
[1] The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 15 June 1911, Vol.XI, pp.309-347"
Candidate 3: "Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic. [1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government. They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary. The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands.
[1] R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983, http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article11.html"
Candidate 4: "The British colony was established only though the expulsion of the Argentinian colony. It does not matter how long ago this happened - as the legal maxim goes ‘title does not pass with theft’.
Colonists do not have a right to self-determination. It would be absurd if a group of people could invade some land, drive off the people living there; and then state that they have acquired the right to decide for themselves to stay there. The natural consequence of that principle would be that anyone could gain property through ethnic cleansing and long enough adverse possession."
Candidate 5: "If military costs are excluded, the islands are self-supporting. They are of great value because they bring rights to fishing and oil exploration. If the oil that has been detected in the islands’ territory can be extracted economically, the islands will be an even greater asset to Britain. [1] Strategically, they provide NATO with an airbase in the south Atlantic. Port Stanley was used as a supply base for the Royal Navy in WW1, resulting in the Battle of the Falkland Islands. [2]
Moreover ‘value’ means more than products and services – the value of the inhabitant’s right to self-determination is priceless
[1] Swint, Brian, ‘Oil Grab in Falkland Island Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy’, Bloomberg, 25 January 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-25/oil-grab-in-falkland-islands...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands"
Candidate 6: "The fact that Spain never formally renounced sovereignty is irrelevant – when Britain asserted its territorial claim Spain acquiesced.
Additionally if Spain’s claim did not lapse when it evacuated its colony then surely neither did Britain’s. Nor is it obvious that Argentina should have inherited the Spanish claim to the Falklands – they lie 250 miles off the coast of mainland South America.
Britain was of course not going to immediately contest the 1816 claim as she did not yet recognise Argentina so far as Britain was concern the Argentines were not sovereign and did not have sovereignty over any of their territory – at the time the UK recognised Spanish sovereignty over the mainland that Argentina claimed."
Candidate 7: "Vernet sought the permission of the British consulate before establishing his colony – clearly even he thought there was ambiguity over the status of the islands.
Moreover the British and Spanish settlements ended not because of commercial failure but because of indirect pressure caused by war. If Argentinian sovereignty survives expulsion through war then presumably British sovereignty could survive temporary abandonment due to war.
It is also difficult to describe a settlement as permanent when it was on the point of collapse when the British took it over."
Candidate 8: "Returning the islands would not be a sign that violence and threats are legitimate. It would be recognition of the justice of Argentina’s claim and the illegality of Britain’s occupation of the islands. In fact, it would show that illegal acts of violence, like that of 1833, will eventually be overturned."
Candidate 9: "Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict. [1] The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands.
In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively.
The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, indeed Britain’s Prime Minister has gone so far as to say the Argentines are the ones who are sounding colonial. [2]
[1] BBC News, ‘Blair’s historic Argentina visit’, 2 August 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1467847.stm
[2] BBC News ‘Argentina outraged at Cameron’s ‘colonialism’ remarks’, 19 January 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16625963"
Candidate 10: "Britain sent its soldiers to fight an unjust war. Their sacrifices do not make British occupation of the islands legal."
| Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic. [1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government. They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary. The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands.
[1] R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983, http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article11.html
|
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 : Am I willing to delay getting the vaccine just as the country is opening-up
Proposition: is Tim Stanley willing to delay getting the vaccine just as the country is opening-up | Assertive Questioning |
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: 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 1: "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 2: "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 3: "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 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: "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"
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."
| 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.
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: worse | If you 're going to do anything with your life outside of playing video games then you need to stop being such an entitled little shit about it and realize that there will always be shitty clones out there trying to cash in on your hard work for nothing but making yourself feel better when all you 've done is put up with some really awful customer service from companies who probably have no idea what they 're selling . |
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: Evolution it seems can contain tautology, mutually exclusive theory, and redundant terminologies.
Response: Evoluition: Change in allele frequency in a population over time.\nSo....where is your tautology, mutually exclusive theory, and redundant terms? I'm not seeing it there.\nOr are you arguing vs. some definition of evolution that you haven't yet presented? Let's see some bullet items to debate, not the sea-of-montalban's-ideas :) :)\nemoticonXHoho \n-Mach | -2.0 |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | The government has a duty to relieve suffering. As cannabis can do that, it should be legal. | Cannabis should be legalised for medical use in the UK. |
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: Hey, I'm a 7th grader. You've got to give me some props... :D\nYes, I do classify myself as a scientific newbie. But I am definitely by no means illiterate.
Response: Well...\nYou can apparently read, but what you have apparently chosen to read - and accept - says much. | 33.3333 |
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "Not only students but also everyone could get more information and knowledge", target argumentative component: "people can gain more knowledge by using the internet, the most useful technology in the world" | support |
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: U.S. demand for drugs
It is the rich US that creates the demand for drugs in the first place. Without this demand the price of drugs would be low and the profits of drugs trafficking through Mexico to the USA would disappear. In 2010 an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or over were illicit drug users. [1] And this immense drugs market was estimated to provide Mexican cartels with earnings between $13.6 and $48.4 billion. [2] Drugs are therefore a problem that is best dealt with from the perspective of reducing demand. Hillary Clinton accepted this when she said “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade”. However the US' answer to the drugs problem has so far been the 'war on drugs' concentrating massive investment on trying to reduce supply and this includes funding the Mexican government in its war as well and at the same time as making this admission Clinton was giving $80 million to provide Mexico with Blackhawk helicopters. [3]
[1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011.
[2] Cook, Colleen W., ‘Mexico’s Drug Cartels’, CRS Report for Congress, 16 October 2007, p.4
[3] BBC News, ‘Clinton admits US blame on Drugs’, 26 March 2009.
Candidate 1: "These were alien criminals who should never have been in the United States in the first place. The blame for these people being able to create drugs cartels in Central America should not lie with the United States for deporting these people but with the Central American states for not then monitoring and controlling these returnees."
Candidate 2: "As Mexico’s biggest trading partner the United States always has a major role in the state of the Mexican economy. The United States is also partially to blame for the Peso crisis. Wall St in particular played up a ‘Mexican miracle’ helping to create a bubble, and idea that was also boosted by the US government which was making the case for the North American Free Trade Agreement at the time. [1]
We should also not be too quick to blame the economy as there is always some uncertainty in the figures; using different statistical methods you get different results. A study implies a growth rate of household income for Mexico of 4½-5½ percent per year in 1984-2006, which is substantially higher than the 2 percent implied by standard methods. [2] If this was the case then a poor economy could not be seen as much of a factor in the increase in violence and drugs trafficking.
[1] Edwards, Sebastian, ‘The Mexican Peso Crisis: How much did we know? When did we know it?’ NBER working paper series, Working paper 6334, p.4
[2] Carvalho Filho, Irineu de, and Chamon, Marcos, ‘The Myth of Post-Reform Income Stagnation: Evidence from Brazil and Mexico’, IMF working paper, (Aug. 2008), p.27."
Candidate 3: "The United States can be blamed for the downward spiral. There would not be a downward spiral of fear and violence if the United States was not a source of arms for the cartels."
Candidate 4: "There will always be two ways to solve the problem of illegal drugs, focusing on demand and focusing on supply. Focusing on supply is a valid strategy, as the US pushes the price of drugs on US streets up so it pushes the drugs beyond the ability of most people to afford the drugs and will as a result mean less drug addicts in the United States. This in turn could result in a drop in supply."
Candidate 5: "Mexico’s government is no weaker than any other government. The country in Central America which has the lowest homicide rate is Costa Rica, [1] a country which has no standing army. [2] Yet it suffers from many of the same disadvantages that Mexico has, for example, like Mexico it is on the drugs route to the United States. This implies that at the very least having a weak government is not the whole cause of Mexico’s conflict.
Yes there is a weak government in Mexico, particularly at the local level, but we need to ask ourselves how the government becomes so subverted. The answer is money. There have been allegations that President Vicente Fox allowed the most powerful drug lord to escape prison in 2001 in return for $20 million. [3] If the very top of the governmental hierarchy can be subverted for money then the rest is as well.
[1] Schwarz, Isabella Cota, ‘Homicide rate drops to lowest in region’ The Tico Times, 8 June 2012.
[2] ‘Costa Rica’, The World Factbook, 24 May 2012.
[3] Rohr, Mathieu von, ‘A Nation Descends into Violence’, Spiegel Online, 23 December 2010."
Candidate 6: "This is claiming exactly the opposite of the previous point on U.S. demand for drugs; is not Mexican demand for guns as much to blame for guns in Mexico as U.S. supply? The US has put considerable effort into making sure that the Mexicans are able to counter cartels armed with guns with U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers training Mexican army commandoes. Similarly the Marine Corps also is working on an exchange program with the Mexican Marine Corps that will include sharing experiences on urban warfare. The US also arms the Mexican armed forces to prevent them being outgunned by the gangs. [1]
[1] Bowman, Tom, 'CIA And Pentagon Wonder: Could Mexico Implode?' NPR."
Candidate 7: "Mexico has its own problems with drugs consumption so the demand problem can’t all be blamed on the US. Mexico City's former chief of police, Gertz Manero has said there are now 4.5 million crimes a year committed in Mexico. "90% of those are stealing or are related to stealing. And 90% of those are for less than 8,000 pesos (about US$727). Mostly this is for drugs." Unemployment due to liberalisation of the economy has led to mass drug consumption so drugs would continue to flow into Mexico and enrich the cartels even if the U.S. drugs market dried up. [1]
[1] Evans, Leslie, 'Electoral Democracy Has Yet to Shake Mexico's Corrupt Bureaucracy', UCLA International Institute, 16 March 2005."
| Mexico has its own problems with drugs consumption so the demand problem can’t all be blamed on the US. Mexico City's former chief of police, Gertz Manero has said there are now 4.5 million crimes a year committed in Mexico. "90% of those are stealing or are related to stealing. And 90% of those are for less than 8,000 pesos (about US$727). Mostly this is for drugs." Unemployment due to liberalisation of the economy has led to mass drug consumption so drugs would continue to flow into Mexico and enrich the cartels even if the U.S. drugs market dried up. [1]
[1] Evans, Leslie, 'Electoral Democracy Has Yet to Shake Mexico's Corrupt Bureaucracy', UCLA International Institute, 16 March 2005.
|
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Technology impact on people
Nowadays, the Earth has become like a small village. In the course of the last hundred years, the way majority of people communicate with each other has been altered significantly because of technology. But there are vast amount of disputes whether it is positive or negative. From my point of view, this development was a very positive one in spite of its some drawbacks.
To begin with, nowadays, to keep in touch with loved ones in faraway places has become easy than ever. Technology revolutionized the way we communicate and in present, it is almost possible to do everything without tete-a-tete. By means of some software such as Skype, MSN, Whatsapp we can get in touch with everybody whenever we want. For example, in earlier times, people didn't leave for faraway places, because they could easily get lost. This is also one salient prove that the development of technology was a very positive.
Further, by means of some communication tools, it has become very easy to make new friends. According to statistics, 40% of people met even their life partners via Internet. In this sense, Internet is a basic tool to keep in touch with old and make new friends.
However, the other side of the coin is that, by communicating via Internet or phone, we cannot express our ideas and feelings fully, because during such conversations, some of our words can make a completely different sense. As a result, the rate of divorces is increasing day by day.
By way of conclusion, I once again restate my position that the development of technology impacted on the means of communication among people very positively by making it easier and more comfortable. | this development was a very positive one
the development of technology impacted on the means of communication among people very positively by making it easier and more comfortable
Technology revolutionized the way we communicate
it is almost possible to do everything without tete-a-tete
nowadays, to keep in touch with loved ones in faraway places has become easy than ever
By means of some software such as Skype, MSN, Whatsapp we can get in touch with everybody whenever we want
in earlier times, people didn't leave for faraway places
they could easily get lost
This is also one salient prove that the development of technology was a very positive
Internet is a basic tool to keep in touch with old and make new friends
by means of some communication tools, it has become very easy to make new friends
According to statistics, 40% of people met even their life partners via Internet
during such conversations, some of our words can make a completely different sense
by communicating via Internet or phone, we cannot express our ideas and feelings fully
the rate of divorces is increasing day by day |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: The idea of abortion as population control is absurd, especially forced abortions as someone mentioned a few posts ago. Anyone who has read a biology book knows the world has methods of population control on its own, we don\'t need to be doing stuff like that ourselves.\nThis stat sounds more than a bit inflated. Seeing as it comes from a website called "women\'s issues" it is probably not all that credible.
Response: Actually the Alan Guttmacher Institute is quite reputible. They have their own web site. Check it out. Also, why would a site called "womens issuses" be in valid? | 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: not sure if we can get more carbon neutral ways up and running for Christmas
Proposition2: now HGV drivers are not allowed to take their wives with them for insurance and things like that | No Relation |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | the organ trade can provide a greater supply of organs which could save many lives. | 1.0 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: You are making some false assumptions.\nHowever, I guess you are unable to read. I definately know you can't read in context.
Response: Yep, he dodged it again. Care to explain your views on Creation in the Tanakh for the folks here? | -1.4 |
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 benefits of human rights
All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there. [1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852. [2]
[1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997
[2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995
Candidate 1: "Human rights contradictions
Many human rights are not compatible with each other. If two things are both 'fundamental' then they must both be equally true and important. However the protection of any human right requires the violation of others. For example the right to security of person requires the existence of a police force, which must be funded by taxes coercively obtained, which violates the right to property. Similarly the right of a wife to divorce her husband to protect her own happiness may compromise his own happiness. A right cannot be 'fundamental' if it must be weighed up, balanced against and possibly compromised in light of another 'fundamental' right, as this would mean they exist in conflict with each other."
Candidate 2: "Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'."
Candidate 3: "Danger of dogma
Having a fixed set of fundamental human rights makes it harder to adapt to changing circumstances. As we have already seen conceptions of human rights vary by culture and time, and should be properly seen as a product of those specific factors, not as universal fundamentals. What was seen as a 'fundamental right' in the 18th Century may not be appropriate for the 21st, and what is seen as a right in the 21st Century may be actively harmful to recognise as a right in the 24th. For example it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms was more useful in the America of the 18th Century, when there was no police force and hunting for food was more important, than in the 21st Century, where it could be argued that gun ownership results in higher gun crime rates for America than for other industrialized nations. [1] Enshrining rights as 'fundamental' makes it much harder to remove or modify them as circumstances change and they become less useful.
[1] Gumbel, Andrew “The Big Question: Can America ever be weaned off its love affair with guns?”,The Independent, Wednesday, 4 October 2006."
Candidate 4: "The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]
[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011."
Candidate 5: "There is no clear reason why a 'desire' must be a 'right', even if it were universal. Merely wishing for something does not establish the existence of rights, but merely creates a 'wish list' which may not actually be possible in reality. For example humans may universally desire a life of leisure without hard work, but it would be impossible to meet this desire for everyone, as then there would be no work done and therefore no resources to support leisure."
Candidate 6: "Relative perceptions of human rights
If fundamental human rights really existed, then they would be equally and identically recognised in all cultures, localities and times. This clearly is not and never has been the case. Firstly there are differing conceptions of what fundamental rights are originating from different cultures and traditions, which often contradict each other. For example the former Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia Lee Kuang Yew [1] and Mahathir bin Mohamad have both cited 'Asian values' which differ from Western conceptions of human rights by having a greater focus on community stability, order and loyalty at the expense of personal freedoms. [2] Even within similar historical traditions conceptions of 'fundamental' human rights differ. The 'right to keep and bear arms' is considered fundamental under the constitution of the USA [3] but is not found in either the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights [4] or the European Union's European Convention on Human Rights. [5] Therefore no fundamental human rights exist, as if they did they would be recognised in all cultures, but they are not. This furthermore makes their application across different cultures highly difficult, and such culturally-relative conceptions of human rights may be used as excuses by more powerful cultures to control less powerful ones in the name of protecting 'fundamental' rights.
[1] McCarthy, Terry. “In Defence of Asian Values: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew”. TIME Magazine U.S., 16/03/1998.
[2] bin Mohamad, Mahathir. “Agenda for a New Asia”. Address at Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Fall Gala Dinner 28/10/2000.
[3] United States, Constitution of the United States, May 1787.
[4] United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.
[5] Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1 June 2010."
| The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain is far from clear-cut. [1]
[1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.
|
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: The complex controls over enrolment
Suggesting investments are required in teachers limits a recognition of the multiple forces creating barriers to achieve a right to education. Universal education is constrained by political, socio-cultural, and economic, structures.
Firstly, gender inequalities in education raise cultural norms of the role of girls in society, and within the domestic-sphere at home. Religious and cultural beliefs mean girls account for 70% of children not attending school. Across Sub-Saharan Africa the economics of child marriage often mean girls leave school or become reluctant to go to school. A positive correlation is found between low education and countries with high rates of child marriage [1] . Niger has the highest rate of child marriage.
Secondly, poverty and hunger act as key restraints in achieving the target. As Mkandawire (2010) argues, development needs to be brought back onto the ‘pro-poor’ agenda. Human capital cannot be developed without a broader focus on social and economic policies that enable development first.
[1] See further readings: Education for Girls, 2013.
Candidate 1: "Proposals for basing education, and teaching, on a universal language raise criticism. Will students be able to ask for assistance at home and amongst their community if the language taught is not understood? Does enforcing a national language return to unequal relations of power - overriding the history and ethnic diversity of said nation? Shouldn’t national governments be more sensitive to local communities and group identities? Finally, what language will be chosen, and how will the decision be made? The implementation of a national language introduces a risk of conflict in unstable countries.
It also needs to be remembered that a national language has to be taught; something which requires investment in teachers."
Candidate 2: "Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed
Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need.
In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations."
Candidate 3: "Social Policy for satisfied teachers
The creation of national social policies which provide secure, and stable, wages for teachers is fundamental. Social policy can make satisfied teachers. A key concern amongst teachers is finance - inadequate wages and insurance. Teacher wages is considerably lower than other formal professions - combining to enforce low morale and occupational motivation as pay is too low to sustain individuals and households (Bennell, 2004). In South Africa an average teaching salary is 19,535 ZAR in contrast to the 28,235 ZAR average granted in all jobs in South Africa (Salary Explorer, 2013).
Further, social policy is required to introduce teacher pension schemes. Pension schemes are provided for workers within the formal employment sector, by various public organisations - including the government and GEPF [1] . However, some national pension schemes are more developed than others and teachers need to be ensured the profession can provide investments for future security. An ageing population only reinforces its importance.
[1] See further readings: GEPF, 2013."
Candidate 4: "A key concern in achieving the MDG is quality control - regulation is required to do so, and the standard of teaching needs to be monitored; this cannot be done at home. Investing in teachers will ensure basic needs are met.
Teachers are the vital resources to transfer knowledge, and providing universal access to standardised education. Thus direct investment is required in teachers for students well-being."
Candidate 5: "Teacher training
Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key.
Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] .
Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training.
[1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.
[2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project.
[3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013."
Candidate 6: "Critiquing the foundation of the MDG does not resolve the reality that around 56mn children are still unable to use their right to education (UN, 2013)."
Candidate 7: "Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers
UNESCO (2013) report the need for 6.8mn teachers by 2015 for the right to primary education to be achieved. The teaching workforce requires includes both replacements and additional teachers. Africa has a reality of low teacher-student ratios. In 2012, 80 students were reported per teacher in the Central African Republic (World Bank, 2013). Positive schemes are needed to incentivise potential teachers to enter the profession and meet demand.
Careers can be encouraged through multiple paths. For example, providing incentives to study teaching as a profession. Tanzania’s Ministry of Education provides grants to students entering University to study teaching."
Candidate 8: "Fundamentally, structures cannot be changed without development. Human capital however, provides a means of development. Studies have shown the positive role human capital - a composite measure of education and knowledge - has on a nation’s development.
The AfDB have shown that enhanced human capital amongst Africa’s young population is empowering change - promoting good governance and post-conflict recovery; and intrinsic to economic growth (Diawara, 2011). In other words teachers need investment to educate the youths in order to overcome these barriers to universal education."
| Fundamentally, structures cannot be changed without development. Human capital however, provides a means of development. Studies have shown the positive role human capital - a composite measure of education and knowledge - has on a nation’s development.
The AfDB have shown that enhanced human capital amongst Africa’s young population is empowering change - promoting good governance and post-conflict recovery; and intrinsic to economic growth (Diawara, 2011). In other words teachers need investment to educate the youths in order to overcome these barriers to universal education.
|
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: PRO
Aspect: free | Cloning is legal in Britain as long as it does n't involve human reproduction - but only if there is no chance that the embryo could develop into a baby ( which would require more research ) . |
Mark the stance of the argument towards the topic as pro or con. | Argument: a judge shouldnt be able to show their personal views.; Topic: We should limit judicial activism | 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 nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: No, it wasn't. Given the number of scientists one might assume that at least one would confuse his science with his religion. It seems that according to AIG, 182 actually do.
Response: Hundreds of thousands of atheist scientists do too, since common ancestry with apes harmonizes perfectly with the absence of a creator. They're seldom asked to answer about that confusion, however.\n | 1.66667 |
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? | people should be free to decided what and how they want to eat | 0.827153801 |
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: I still find it ironic that so many people actually construe the 9th amendment to achieve a magical number of rights.
Response: Well, one has to use something to make the Constitution say something that it does not say; especially if it doesn't say something that one really, really, really wants to have.\n | 0.8 |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "They communicate less with their parents", argumentative component 2: "they spend a lot of money to buy a lot of beauty products or go to gym to get better appearance or body" | No |
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: Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information beyond that which they are taught at school.
Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day – not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom – students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student.
Candidate 1: "Homework does not ensure that students practise what they are taught at school. Teachers often give pupils the end of the exercise they were doing in class to complete at home, it tends to be the harder questions towards the end of the exercise and if a teacher or a tutor is not present to explain or help then it causes the pupil to doubt their ability. To practise what a student has been taught requires the presence of a teacher or tutor who can guide the student if they get something wrong. Homework, done by the student on their own, offers little support and is only a source of stress. If confused, the student may only come to dislike the topic or subject, which will only further reduce their ability to remember what they were taught."
Candidate 2: "Homework is a class issue. In school everyone is equal, but at home some people have advantages because of their family background. Middle-class families with books and computers will be able to help their children much more than poorer ones can. This can mean poorer children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done homework. David Baker, a researcher, believes too much homework causes parents and children to get angry with each other and argue, destroying the child’s confidence 1. On the other hand pushy parents may even end up doing their kids’ homework for them – cheating and not helping the student learn at all.
1 Britt , 2005"
Candidate 3: "Homework puts students off learning
Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very stressful, boring and tiring. Often teachers underestimate how long a task will take, or set an unrealistic deadline. Sometimes because a teacher has not explained something new well in class, the homework task is impossible. So children end up paying with their free time for the failings of their teachers. They also suffer punishments if work is done badly or late. After years of bad homework experiences, it is no wonder that many children come to dislike education and switch off, or drop out too early. Teachers in Britain fear that poor children, because they lack the support to do their homework, will be turned off school 1.
1 BBC News, 2008"
Candidate 4: "Homework is not an essential part of information. If what was to be learnt from homework was that essential, it would not be left to the child to learn on their own and away from school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply setting homework because they are expected to set it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The best environment for learning is in a classroom, where the student is able to ask for assistance if stuck and the teacher is available to help. .
1 BBC News, 2008"
Candidate 5: "Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time
Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. As Alfie Kohn notes, no study has ever found a link between homework and better tests results in elementary school, and there is no reason to believe it is necessary in high school.1 International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores - students in Japan and Denmark get little homework but score very well on tests.2 If anything, countries with more homework get worse results!
1 Sorrentino , 2011
2 Britt , 2005"
Candidate 6: "Marking homework reduces the amount of time teachers have to prepare good lessons
Irrespective of homework's educational value, marking it takes up much of teachers' time. Australian teachers have complained that 'homework marking can result in four extra hours of work a day and they are rarely rewarded for their effort'.1 This leaves teachers tired and with little time to prepare effective, inspiring lessons. If the lessons aren't to the standard they should be, the point of homework is lost as the students have little to practise in the first place. The heavy workload also puts young graduates off becoming teachers, and so reduces the talent pool from which schools can recruit.
1 Speranza, 2011"
Candidate 7: "The ban on homework could be easily enforced through school inspections
In many countries public schools require regular school inspections to ensure students are receiving a relatively equal level of education. In Britain for example, Ofsted is a public body that exists specifically to inspect public schools.1 A ban on homework would thus not require a level of trust between the state and individual school principals, for state inspectors could very quickly work out whether homework was being given out by asking the children themselves. Children, who don't like homework at the best of times, would not lie.
1 Ofsted, 2011"
Candidate 8: "Homework reduces the amount of time for students to do other activities
Homework takes a lot of time up. In America, they encourage the '10 minute rule', 10 minutes homework for every grade, meaning that high-school students are all doing more than an hour's worth of homework each night.1 Being young is not just about doing school work every night. It should also about being physically active, exploring the environment through play, doing creative things like music and art, and playing a part in the community. It is also important for young people to build bonds with others, especially family and friends, but homework often squeezes the time available for all these things.
1 Associated Press, 2009"
Candidate 9: "Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning. Furthermore, if teachers want to develop independence in their students, students should be given a choice in the matter of homework. Otherwise, they’re not using their judgement and therefore they aren’t being independent at all 1.
1 Sorrentino , 2011"
Candidate 10: "Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning
Many governments make their schools give students a national test (a test taken by all students of the same age). After the tests, they compare schools and punish the schools and teachers whose students do badly. Because schools and teachers are therefore scared about their students doing poorly, they give them more homework, not in the hope they learn more but simply to do better on the tests.1 As such, homework is not designed to help the student, just their teachers and schools who want them to 'win' the test and make them look good, not learn for the students' own benefit.
1 Sorrentino"
| Homework is not an essential part of information. If what was to be learnt from homework was that essential, it would not be left to the child to learn on their own and away from school. In fact, many teachers admit to simply setting homework because they are expected to set it, not because they think it will be helpful 1. The best environment for learning is in a classroom, where the student is able to ask for assistance if stuck and the teacher is available to help. .
1 BBC News, 2008
|
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 erodes individuality and is repressive on the individual therefore we should strongly oppose it. | 0.787191798 |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 2