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 |
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: Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review
There are two types of plays that defy instant replay. The first is one that would belong to a longer sequence of events, called “continuation plays.” Often, when an umpire makes a call, the ball is still in play, and more plays might follow. A commentator offers this scenario: “For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners?” [1] There’s just no easy way for video replay to be used in continuation plays.
[1] Don Hunsberger, “Let’s bring meaningful instant replay to baseball,” Daily Commercial, June 6, 2010, http://www.dailycommercial.com/060610hunsberger .
Candidate 1: "Even if instant replay will not result in 100% accuracy, it will improve the chance that any individual reviewed call will be made correctly. In the status quo, umpires make their calls as if they’re certain, so projecting false certainty really should not be a major concern for the Opposition. What video review will do is ensure that the umpire can be at least as confident about his call as the managers, coaches, and millions of viewers watching at home"
Candidate 2: "Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.
First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.
Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.
Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.
Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc."
Candidate 3: "Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]
[1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011, http://www.inhistoric.com/2011/9/5/2405135/why-baseball-purists-are-dead-wrong-about-instant-replay ."
Candidate 4: "Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive
Not all video reviews will lead to an accurate ruling. Sometimes, camera angles could give a tricky, incorrect impression. Or they could shed little light on what actually happened. In these cases, instant replay will afford the appearance of certainty when the reality is much more complicated. In addition, all of the harms of inaccurate calls that Proposition is trying to solve will continue to exist."
Candidate 5: "With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games
There are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above). These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa. In short, the results of the games are illegitimate. This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision."
Candidate 6: "It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill
Umpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously. Mistakes will happen. Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1] Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls. [2] Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.” [3] But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him.
It is folly to withhold technology that is already available. Even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, generally an opponent of instant replay, acknowledged “that the extraordinary technology that we now have merits the use of instant replay on a very limited basis” when he announced its adoption on boundary calls. [4] Just as we would never countenance a rule prohibiting umpires from wearing eyeglasses to see calls better, we should also not tolerate a rule that essentially keeps umpires blind to a reality that everyone else—reporters, coaches, and fans—has access to. Well-respected Sports Illustrate columnist Joe Posnanski captured this point well: “Baseball ... should institute replay because it’s just not sustainable in today’s technological world to make bad calls on the field. Those days are over.... You can’t keep giving the fans at home better access to the truth than the home plate umpire.” [5] Instant replay is a necessary tool to help umpires “see” better.
[1] Ibid .
[2] Ed Price, “Baseball Brunch: Upon Further Review…,” AOL News, May 31, 2009, http://www.aolnews.com/2009/05/31/baseball-brunch-upon-further-review/ .
[3] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/umpire_quotes.shtml .
[4] Jack Curry, “Baseball to Use Replay Reviews on Homers,” New York Times, Aug. 26, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/sports/baseball/27replay.html .
[5] Joe Posnanski, “Meals and Squeals,” SI.com, July 27, 2011, http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/27/meals-and-squeals/ ."
Candidate 7: "Proposition is not arguing for all calls to be made via instant replay. Balls and strikes, for example, are best left to umpires because they are regarded as more subjective, and because there is no video equipment that consistently renders results that are widely viewed as accurate.
Besides, the human element that really matters is that of the players. The umpires’ human element might be substituted for making sure that the players’ human element is what decides the game. The point of the baseball game is for players to win or lose the game, not for umpires to win or lose the game. A baseball game played by robots but umpired by people would have lost its “human element,” but the same certainly would not be said about a baseball game played by humans and officiated by robots (or even just human beings who occasionally consult video footage and interpret it in their human minds)."
Candidate 8: "Baseball is not just about the players. It’s about managers, coaches, fans, and umpires too. It is a rather narrow view to argue that baseball umpires should remain invisible. Umpires play a central role in every game. They make signals that are meant to attract attention. When a crucial play occurs in the bottom of the ninth inning, all eyes are on the umpire to see what the outcome will be. Bruce Froemming, who broke Klem’s record for most MLB games umpired, had this rejoinder to Klem: “One of the really wrong theories about officiating is that a good official is one you never notice. The umpire who made that statement was probably a real poor official who tried to get his paycheck and hide behind his partners and stay out of trouble all his life. Control of the ballgame is the difference between umpires that show up for the players and the managers.” [1] Rather than denying umpires’ central role, we should acknowledge it.
Joyce’s blown call—and the sorrow he felt afterward—are as memorable, and as part of the culture of baseball, as any celebration of a perfect game. Joyce’s post-game press conference might not go in the record books, but it will remain as much a part of baseball history as Galarraga’s achievement would have. It is pure assertion to argue that that is not what baseball is about or what fans want to see.
[1] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/umpire_quotes.shtml ."
Candidate 9: "Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used
One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented."
Candidate 10: "Both the arguments provided by the proposition are faulty.
First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls might be correct, but that’s because the vast majority of calls are completely uncontroversial. The question is what percentage of difficult calls do umpires get right. And it would appear that umpires do not stack up well. An ESPN study of close calls found that umpires get over 20 percent of them wrong. [1] More frequent use of instant replays might correct some of these calls, but it would do so at the expense of severely damaging umpires’ credibility, which would impair their ability to do all the other important aspects of their job.
Second, in crucial moments, it’s imperative for umpires to be especially attentive, and for them to make conclusive decisions. If umpires know that they don’t have to get the call right because the cameras can save them, then they’re more likely to get it wrong. And if umpires’ decisions are not final, then what should be the most exciting moments in baseball games will be supplanted by monotonous waiting for umpires to review the footage.
[1] T.J. Quinn and Willie Weinbaum, “Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong,” ESPN.com, Aug. 16, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5464015"
Candidate 11: "Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires
Umpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game. When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong. Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.” [1] The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue. Instant replay will help make this happen.
With instant replay, we would not have had Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game, holding a tearful press conference apologizing for his missed call. Instead, we would have had images of Galarraga celebrating his historical achievement with his teammates. The latter, not the former, is what baseball is supposed to be about, and what fans want to see. Instant replay will ensure that baseball revolves around the players, rather than the officials.
[1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Bill_Klem ."
Candidate 12: "Instant replay will take too long
We already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.
[1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, http://theamericanscholar.org/metaphors-we-play-by/ ."
Candidate 13: "This debate is clearly highlighting a difference in philosophy about the role of the umpire. Proposition first says that umpires should not be a central part of the game (see Argument Four). Now Proposition says that a game’s outcome is illegitimate if it was decided by a poor call by an umpire. This is the wrong way of looking at it. As long as the umpire tried his best to make an accurate judgment, then his call is “legitimate,” as is anything that flows from it. “Legitimacy” is not the same as “accuracy.” Indeed, the umpire’s call might be the sole source of legitimacy. Proposition previously quoted legendary umpire Bill Klem, but remember two of Klem’s other statements: “Gentlemen, he was out because I said he was out,” and “It ain’t nothin’ till I call it.” [1] There is no such thing as a “legitimate” outcome divorced from the context of an umpire’s call.
[1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Bill_Klem ."
Candidate 14: "Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them
The main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls. Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball. When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly.... Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]
Without a doubt, instant replay helps to improve the accuracy of calls. When a play can be reviewed after the fact, in slow-motion, from multiple angles, it’s almost inevitable that the result will be a more accurate judgment. Instant replay serves as an additional tool for umpires, allowing closer examination of events. By providing umpires with an extra set of eyes, video cameras will better enable umps to fulfil their purpose.
[1] Major League Baseball, Official Baseball Rules, http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf ."
Candidate 15: "If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.
Also, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better."
Candidate 16: "Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature
Instant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways.
First, the vast majority of umpires’ calls are accurate. Statistical analyses have shown that well over 99 percent of calls are accurate, [1] but this is not always appreciated by spectators. Instant replay will often confirm umpires’ calls, which will call to the public’s attention just how often umpires get it right.
Second, in cases where umpires’ incorrect judgments could have very bad consequences—for example, in the case of Armando Galarraga’s ruined perfect game, or in deciding the outcome of a crucial game—instant replay will allow a reversal. This will spare the umpire much guilt and shame. Umpire Tim McClelland, who was involved in questionable calls during the 2009 playoffs, said as much about his experience and those of Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game: “After watching what I went through in the playoffs last year and then what Jim's going through, I think more and more umpires are coming around to [increased use of replay].” [2]
Former umpire Don Denkinger expressed a similar sentiment. He blew a call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, and probably changed the outcome of the entire season. “I had 30 great years ... and I had one call that’s all anybody ever wants to talk about. It’s not right,” he said, adding that he now supports instant replay. [3]
[1] Gil Imber, “Stats Prove MLB Umpires Call 99.5 Percent of Plays Correctly,” Bleacher Report, Oct. 26, 2011, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/911552-defining-the-human-element-mlb-umpires-call-995-of-plays-correctly .
[2] Paul White, “Expanding instant replay not an easy call to make for MLB,” USA Today, June 12, 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-06-10-instant-replay_N.htm .
[3] ESPN.com News Services, “Denkinger supports replay in baseball,” ESPN.com, June 3, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?"
Candidate 17: "Everybody knows umpires make mistakes; it happens often enough that fans and players all recognize it is part of the game. Nobody expects umpires to be perfect, but everyone wants umpires to strive for perfection. It’s just like with players: everybody wants their favourite players to strive to play perfectly, but nobody actually expects them to be perfect. Thus, we can’t sacrifice other elements of the game (discussed elsewhere in this debate) on the altar of perfection.
It is disingenuous to liken instant replay to eyeglasses or to mere tools to “supplement” umpires’ skill. Instant replay becomes a substitute for—not a supplement to—umpires’ skill. There is no skill involved in watching a slow-motion replay and determining whether a player was tagged; millions of fans do that each night from the comfort of their living rooms. We do not want the fundamental character of baseball to be changed by removing umpires from the equation, which is what happens every time instant replay is used."
Candidate 18: "Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball
Baseball, like all sports, “is the pursuit of transcending imperfection.” [1] It is not supposed to be executed with robotic perfection; it is supposed to involve human beings all trying their best to do the best they can.
Fallible umpire calls are part of the drama of baseball. Many people enjoy the excitement that comes with the fallibility of umpire's calls. This sub-plot in baseball in unique and should be preserved.
Indeed, fooling the ump is a time-honored part of the game. [2] It is not cheating; no rule is broken when one pretends to have been hit by a pitch to try to dupe the umpire. It is a colourful, even skilful way to work within the imperfect, very human parameters that the sport.
[1] Mark Coatney, “The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call,” Daily Beast, June 2, 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/03/the-greatness-and-perfection-of-missing-the-call.html .
[2] Tom Krasovic, “Dusty Baker Defends Umpires Amid Calls for Expanded Instant Replay,” AOL News, Oct. 9, 2010, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/09/dusty-baker-defends-umpires-amid-calls-for-expanded-instant-repl/ ."
Candidate 19: "Umpires have to balance several important considerations: ensuring impartiality (and the appearance of impartiality as well); avoiding unnecessary delays in the game; ensuring that all rules are followed; and to behave in a manner that compels respect from all parties. To argue that the umpire’s job comes down to accurate calls is to oversimplify a very complicated role. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires: “When you enter a ball park your sole duty is to umpire a ball game as the representative of baseball.... Keep the game moving. A ball game is often helped by energetic and earnest work of the umpires” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]
[1] Ibid ."
| If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.
Also, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better.
|
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
I understand that this article is included in the Elixir report collection and it does, in fact, read like a report.
If one is very familiar with Elixir, it probably makes sense, but if one isn't, then it is a bit confusing to read.
But it contains valuable information that I think would be generally useful to everyone trying to develop methods for evaluating data resources.
In fact, an RFI put out by the US National Institutes of Health on repository metrics just closed today.
So if the authors are willing, I think that providing some modifications would make the report more readable to a general audience.
- It would be nice if the first paragraph introduced Elixir a bit more and explained its structure.
This could be done through either a diagram or a reference.
But the Hub idea is critical to the governance of Core Data Resources proposed and it would be nice to make the structure clear.
- The tense of the article is a bit unclear.
Are there already approved Core Data Resources that have been evaluated by the criteria outlined?
At times, it seems that way and other times, it seems like the process has not yet been implemented.
In Table 2, some examples that are considered "core" are given.
But in the text, it says that the resources in table 2 were identified as a "seed list" to inform Core Data Resources.
So it implies that they haven't yet gone through the process.
I think stating up front where you are in the process would make it less confusing.
- Methods section: The term "indicator" is first used in second paragraph of the first section of methods section, but is not defined until the next section.
It should be defined earlier.
- "Legacy stage" is used in the 3rd paragraph.
Legacy has a meaning in data-already existing-and so I think some definition is required here.
It is, in fact, defined in Table 1, so a reference to the Table would be sufficient.
- The indicators are listed in the main text, again in Box 1 and again in Fig 2.
Seems like a bit of overkill.
Also, the purpose of the indicators is defined in multiple places and it is a bit repetitive, e.g., the explanation given under the section "Detailed description of the indicators and related methodology" really isn't necessary.
- FAIR is introduced in Box 1, but not in the text at all.
It seems like it should be mentioned in the introduction to indicators in the methods as it is used as a set of criteria throughout Box 1.
- Is there a timeline as to when the first core resources will be approved (if they haven't been already-see pt 2) | Structure
Other
Weakness
Strength
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Weakness
Recap
Recap
Other
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Recap
Todo
Todo
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Todo
Todo |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: I don't think so.
Response: Well, I still do think so. Never did I receive any scientifically reasonable answer to that. ( I\'ve asked many "authorities")\n | 0.0 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: Anyone who preaches against my people are not a nice guys.
Response: Well, I don't think that is a good way to look at people.\n | 1.6 |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | We should ban naturopathy because simple it is not safe some of them do not qualify to diagnose and treat and whatever they suggested to heal the body not necessarily will work for everyone. | 0.90952157 |
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: Mobile phones: faster communication vs social problems
Recently, there has been a social concern with regard to whether or not mobiles phones have negative effects on our social life. Indeed, mobile phones have widely been used by people of all ages. However, I believe, this great invention in the 21st century causes many problems in our society.
In the first place, spending too much time on mobiles phones many exert an adverse effect on our social skills. For example, as people, especially teenagers increasingly tend to focus on their phones, they may lose their interests on daily activities such as meeting with friends, and this lack of communication may impair their future negotiation and interpersonal skills. Moreover, continuous use of mobile phones may also damage children's eyesight and physical posture. As a result, it is harmful for us to use mobile phones frequently.
Furthermore, the growing number of mobiles games will impact their mental development. For instance, there many game applications available online and many of them are quite aggressive in nature. In these games, children are rewarded to help their characters to kill or shoot monsters or characters controlled by other players, and this many lead to development of aggressive feelings, thoughts and behaviors. Consequently, frequent conflicts may occur during communication.
However, we may perceive this issue from different viewpoints. Mobile phones , such as smart phones, has made our communication easy and convenience. The reason is that, as most of the telecommunication companies provide us with access to the internet via our phones, people are able to enjoy sending instant messages and making international calls free of charge. Thus, mobile phones have shortened the distance of communication.
To sum up, although mobile phones make our communication faster, it also gives rise to many social problems such as children's social skills and their mental health. Therefore, i highly advocate that we should use mobile phone in moderation in order to avoid these serious problems.
Argumentative components: this great invention in the 21st century causes many problems in our society
mobile phones make our communication faster
it also gives rise to many social problems such as children's social skills and their mental health
as people, especially teenagers increasingly tend to focus on their phones, they may lose their interests on daily activities such as meeting with friends, and this lack of communication may impair their future negotiation and interpersonal skills
continuous use of mobile phones may also damage children's eyesight and physical posture
it is harmful for us to use mobile phones frequently
spending too much time on mobiles phones many exert an adverse effect on our social skills
there many game applications available online and many of them are quite aggressive in nature
In these games, children are rewarded to help their characters to kill or shoot monsters or characters controlled by other players, and this many lead to development of aggressive feelings, thoughts and behaviors
frequent conflicts may occur during communication
the growing number of mobiles games will impact their mental development
as most of the telecommunication companies provide us with access to the internet via our phones, people are able to enjoy sending instant messages and making international calls free of charge
mobile phones have shortened the distance of communication
Mobile phones , such as smart phones, has made our communication easy and convenience | Major claims:
this great invention in the 21st century causes many problems in our society
it also gives rise to many social problems such as children's social skills and their mental health
Claims:
this great invention in the 21st century causes many problems in our society
mobile phones make our communication faster
it also gives rise to many social problems such as children's social skills and their mental health
it is harmful for us to use mobile phones frequently
the growing number of mobiles games will impact their mental development
mobile phones have shortened the distance of communication
Premises:
as people, especially teenagers increasingly tend to focus on their phones, they may lose their interests on daily activities such as meeting with friends, and this lack of communication may impair their future negotiation and interpersonal skills
continuous use of mobile phones may also damage children's eyesight and physical posture
spending too much time on mobiles phones many exert an adverse effect on our social skills
there many game applications available online and many of them are quite aggressive in nature
In these games, children are rewarded to help their characters to kill or shoot monsters or characters controlled by other players, and this many lead to development of aggressive feelings, thoughts and behaviors
frequent conflicts may occur during communication
as most of the telecommunication companies provide us with access to the internet via our phones, people are able to enjoy sending instant messages and making international calls free of charge
Mobile phones , such as smart phones, has made our communication easy and convenience |
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: Andy Burnham : I don't agree with David on this
Proposition: David Davis would have done the same thing as Boris Johnson in regards to Matt Hancock | Disagreeing |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is nasty or nice. -5 means strong nasty, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong nice. | Topic: Evolution
Quote: No Electrolyte, science lies! here is the undisputed truth:\nNoah and his three sons traveled the globe, collected two representatives of each species (or seven of each clean species depending on the chapter). They crammed these critters in a sea worthy vessel made exclusively of gopher wood. The gopher wood was structurally sound enough to support the weight of said critters. The ark floated about like a cork for 40 days, etc whereupon the cargo was released to repopulate the world to present population levels. Meanwhile, there must have been provisions on the Ark for marine animals and fish as the rainwater would have undoubtedly altered the water pH and saline content. Also not mentioned is the fact that Noah and sons must have collected seeds from every PLANT on earth because I am personally not aware of many plant types that can survive completely submerged for 40 days. \nSo you see, it is much harder to believe in a fossil record and sediment deposit stratigraphy, than in a giant boat crammed to the gills full of elephants, octopus, and cacti. I hope I cleared this up for everyone. We have found fossils, but they are all fake. We have not found an ark\xe2\x80\xa6.but it is real\xe2\x80\xa6.
Response: If you read this as if he is talking sarcastically it is quite funny. good argument against himself. What he is suggesting is hilarious... emoticonXKill \njust thinking about three (or whatever) amount of people collecting all the non-flood-live-able species in the world and putting them on a vessel is very immaginative and quite frankly impossible... as I've said before, get real. | -0.666667 |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | At the core, Aristotle argued that we should base our knowledge off observations about the world, while Plato said that the material world was unreal and we should base our beliefs on pure reason. This split divides Western Philosophy, as the debate continues through the millennia. For some reason. No modern invention was devised just by sitting around thinking about it. If you want to draw a map of a city, you have to actually go to the city and look around, or get that information from someone else. Evidence is what allows us to challenge our preconceptions and demonstrate things objectively. It seems to me that Platonism encourages you to just accept whatever preconceived notion you have about the world. His stuff isn't testable or falsifiable. I'll admit that the idea of Forms is an interesting thought experiment, but that's all it is. Forms don't actually exist, because you can't perceive them or their effects. At best they're useful models, but models are only useful insofar as they actually correspond to the physical world. Let's look at politics. Plato sat down to reason out the best way of governing and decided that the way everyone was doing it was wrong and philosophers should be in charge of everything. Biased much? Aristotle said, instead of trying to make everything perfect, let's create a space where people are free to live good lives. One of these ideas actually works in practice, and it's not the one that's Just make me dictator of the world and everything will be great. How about art? Plato said that art is irrational, and we should always try to be rational, therefore art corrupts the youth and should be heavily censored. Aristotle said that art helps us experience a wider range of emotions, which in practice is psychologically healthy, and therefore should be encouraged. Again, Aristotle wins. Ethics. Plato's ideas are pretty vague, probably because he's caught up in trying to prove everything perfectly. Aristotle says, Hey, it seems like people get into trouble when they get carried away with something, but also you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Then he explores different virtues and how to cultivate them, without worrying too much about their rational foundation the fact that they work is enough. Thus, Aristotle ends up giving practical life advice while Plato doesn't. I just don't see what good comes from Platonism, and it seems like a lot of my philosophical disagreements with people end up boiling down to that. If I disagree with an Aristotelian, we can show each other data and see who's predictions actually come true and resolve it, because our beliefs are based on the actual world. With Platonists you have to go through elaborate logic games and there's not really any way to convince them of a counterintuitive result because they care more about whether it makes sense than whether it's true. gt This is a footnote from the moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us Happy ing | Plato is vastly overrated and Aristotle is way better. |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The authors have made a pipeline integrating differential RNA-Seq expression analysis with ChIP-Seq analysis and implemented it through the GenomeSpace platform.
Though as mentioned by the authors in the paper: this is a commonly performed bioinformatic task, their aim is to make this integrated analysis easily accessible to non-bioinformatic users.
For this purpose their workflow on the web-based workbench involves integrating multiple tools like Cuffdiff module in GenePattern (for Differential RNA-Seq analysis) with MACS2 in Galaxy (for ChIP-Seq analysis).
Though the workflow presented by the authors seems easy to use by any biologist, it also appears to be severely limited not just in its scope of application but also in its choice of tools which are hardcoded.
For example the authors use "CuffDiff" for Differential RNA-Seq expression analysis.
The authors do not state why they chose this particular method or even why they chose its GenePattern module and not the Galaxy implementation.
Though admittedly this is a popular tool and has the advantage of transcript level analysis, it also suffers from known limitation of underestimating the number of differential genes.
Other count based method like DESeq2 tool (also implemented in Galaxy) might be better suited for most gene-level differential RNA-Seq analysis.
Also, the authors do not clearly explain why their workflow is better or easier for a biologist to implement than using the same tools through Galaxy directly (which has been made for a non-coding biologist).
I would argue that working directly on Galaxy even if slightly more complicated would be more rewarding to users as it offers not just greater flexibility of tools but also the option to select different parameters than default.
Hence in conclusion, to make this manuscript better the authors should 1) provide a clearer explanation for their choice of tools and why is it easier/better to use their pipeline than the same tools on Galaxy directly, 2) If possible the authors should try to expand their workflow to provide a greater flexibility to the user to choose their tools for RNA-Seq and ChIP-Seq analysis. | Structure
Recap
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Weakness
Other
Todo |
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: Gives power to military coup leaders
Assistance from the US would ensure that the coup leaders of Guinea Bissau remain in power. The securitisation of issues such as drugs and ‘terror’ is encouraged by the United States. A major problem with this policy is that it provides undue power and legitimacy to those countering the threat1. In early 2014, the military were still unconstitutionally ruling over the country. The drug war provides an external threat for the military to justify their leadership position. Considering the military has refused to allow democratic elections to occur and has regularly committed coups2, the US drug war could be a perfect excuse for to remain in power until the ‘threat’ subsides.
1) Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’, International Journal of Drug Policy, 2012
2) BBC, ‘Guinea-Bissau drug trade ‘rises since coup’, 31 June 2012
Candidate 1: "It is only fair that the US should have some say on domestic drug policy considering the extent of their military assistance. The offers of assistance are optional and the conditions of compliance are known by both parties. The US gave $6,495 million in military assistance to the Columbian government between 1998 and 2008 to counter the narcotics trade and the rebels who were reliant on the business1. Since this funding comes from the USA’s federal budget, the US should be able to dictate how the money is spent.
1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008"
Candidate 2: "The judicial system is not capable of handling narcotics cases fairly. Corruption and civil war have left Guinea-Bissau’s judicial system broken. Military leader General Antonio Indaj, who has alleged links to the drugs trade, has vetted all political and judicial appointments1. Considering that Guinea-Bissau has no prison, it is unlikely that those in the drug trade will be properly prosecuted. The US’ judicial system is seen as far more impartial and is, therefore, a more logical choice.
1) Reitano,T. & Shaw,M. ‘Arrest of Guinea-Bissau’s Drug Lords Just the First Step in the Battle Against Trafficking’, Institute for Security Studies, 12 August 2013"
Candidate 3: "Prevent drugs from reaching Western markets
By joining the war on drugs, Guinea-Bissau will be in a better position to thwart the transportation of cheap cocaine and heroin to Europe and North America. Guinea-Bissau’s position makes it ideal for the cocaine trade, where drugs can be unloaded from Latin America and then distributed more easily to the West1. Around 18 tons of cocaine (worth $1.25 billion) passes through West Africa annually, most of it travelling through the state2. US assistance and interdiction operations would help prevent illicit drugs from reaching the profitable Western markets.
1) Smoltczyk,A. ‘Africa’s Cocaine Hub: Guinea-Bissau a “Drug Trafficker’s Dream”, Spiegel, 8 March 2013
2) Hoffman,M. ‘Guinea-Bissau and the South Atlantic Cocaine Trade’, Centre for American Progress, 22 August 2013"
Candidate 4: "Becoming a narco-state
Guinea-Bissau’s social fabric is being destroyed by the presence of the drug trade and requires international support. Guinea-Bissau has been named as Africa’s first Narco-state; a country controlled by drug cartels and gangs. Violence committed by these gangs has escalated since the arrival of the Columbian cartels in 20071. Addiction, a consequence of the cocaine and heroin use, is prevalent throughout much of the country. It was estimated in 2012 that around 20-30% of the population use crack, an extremely addictive form of cocaine, and there is only one clinic in the country2. The only people who are visibly profiting from the presence of drugs are the Columbian drug lords who have extravagant mansions and modern cars3. Guinea-Bissau cannot hope to fight the prominence of these gangs by themselves and require aid.
1) Time, ‘Guinea-Bissau: World’s First Narco-State’, data accessed 28 January 2014
2) Hatcher,J. ‘Guinea-Bissau: How Cocaine Transformed a Tiny African Nation’, Time, 15 October 2012
3) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008"
Candidate 5: "US will provide equipment
Guinea-Bissau should join the US drug war as they do not have the means to fight the war themselves. The local law enforcement is underfunded and ill-equipped to deal with the international threat. Guinea Bissau has one ship which patrols 350km of coastline, their officers have little in the way of land transport, petrol, phones or hand cuffs1. The limited reach of the law has allowed the cartels and gangs to prosper which, in turn, further damages law and order in Guinea Bissau. US military assistance will therefore help restore law and order to Guinea Bissau.
1) Parkinson,C. ‘LatAm Drug Traffickers Set Up in Guinea-Bissau, Expand in Africa’, In Sight Crime, 29 August 2013
2) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008Shirk,D. ‘The Drug War in Mexico’, Council of Foreign Relations, March 2011"
Candidate 6: "Part of the financial assistance received by countries on the front line of the drug war is a fund for ‘strengthening of democratic institutions’. Plan Columbia, the USA’s attempt to reduce drug cultivation, saw 27% of all funding going towards democratic initiatives1. In a review by the Congressional Research Service of US drug control policy, the strengthening of the rule of law and democratic institutions is a priority for the US2. If the US drug war was brought to Guinea-Bissau then funding would most likely go towards promoting democratic institutions and a transition of power from the military to the civilians.
1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008
2) Wyler,L. ‘International Drug Control Policy: Background and U.S. Responses’, Congressional Research Service, 13 August 2013"
Candidate 7: "There is a stronger focus on alternative development in drugs policy compared to the beginning of the drug war. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), historically influenced by US drug policy, has taken an increasingly alternative development-orientated stance. The UNODC has committed itself to effective alternative incomes, gender mainstreaming and community participation which demonstrates a global shift towards beneficial development1.
1) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ‘Making a difference through Alternative Development’ data accessed 30 January 2014"
Candidate 8: "Deal with Corruption
Guinea-Bissau’s institutions have become too corrupt to deal with the drug problem and require support. The police, army and judiciary have all been implicated in the drug trade. The involvement of state officials in drug trafficking means that criminals are not prosecuted against. When two soldiers and a civilian were apprehended with 635kg (worth £25.4 million in 2013), they were detained and then immediately released with Colonel Arsenio Blade claiming ‘They were on the road hitching a ride’1. Judges are often bribed or sent death threats when faced with sentencing those involved in the drug trade. The USA has provided restructuring assistance to institutions which have reduced corruption, such as in the Mexico Merida Initiative, and could do the same with Guinea Bissau.
1) Vulliamy,E. ‘How a tiny West African country became the world’s first narco state’, The Guardian, 9 March 2008
2) Corcoran,P. ‘Mexico Judicial Reforms Go Easy On Corrupt Judges’, In Sight Crime, 16 February 2012"
| Part of the financial assistance received by countries on the front line of the drug war is a fund for ‘strengthening of democratic institutions’. Plan Columbia, the USA’s attempt to reduce drug cultivation, saw 27% of all funding going towards democratic initiatives1. In a review by the Congressional Research Service of US drug control policy, the strengthening of the rule of law and democratic institutions is a priority for the US2. If the US drug war was brought to Guinea-Bissau then funding would most likely go towards promoting democratic institutions and a transition of power from the military to the civilians.
1) Acevedo,B. ‘Ten Years of Plan Colombia: An Analytical Assessment’, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, September 2008
2) Wyler,L. ‘International Drug Control Policy: Background and U.S. Responses’, Congressional Research Service, 13 August 2013
|
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Hyewon: Helle Thorning-Schmidt : because it is an investment for the amount of money that these venues in Manchester
Proposition: many people would book the ticket | No Relation |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | Lumos is a spell which sends light from the tip of a wand, to be used as a torch. | There are many useful and simple spells that wizards learn and are able to use frequently. |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "Computers and modems bring works to home but these still have many things distract their mind", argumentative component 2: "interaction help employees improve their communicational skills" | No |
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: Having children is emotionally draining for parents
The level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”*
*Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.html
Candidate 1: "It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.
Four out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane.
*Shah 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats"
Candidate 2: "Having children guarantees support for parents
From parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.
*Worldcrunch, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html?iid=pf-mai..."
Candidate 3: "Having children is our duty and responsibility
We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.
*The Economist Online, 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations"
Candidate 4: "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 5: "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."
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: "Having children is extraordinarily expensive
For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc.
*Boy Scouts of America, 2011, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/media/ES_Finances.pdf"
Candidate 8: "Not having children promotes gender equality
Social and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division.
*Goodley, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/31/cmi-equal-pay-report"
Candidate 9: "Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents
Parenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says "Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood."**
*Kingston, 2009, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/3/
**Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.htm"
Candidate 10: "Having children is the essence of existence for every creature
The most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.
* Collins English Dictionary, 2003, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life"
Candidate 11: "The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.
Not only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes."
Candidate 12: "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 13: "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 14: "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 15: "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 16: "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 17: "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 18: "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 19: "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."
| 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.
|
Detect illocutonary relations existing between locutions uttered in the dialogue and the argumentative propositions associated with them such as: Agreeing (share the opinion of the interlocutorn), Restating (rephrases a previous claim), Challenging (seeking the grounds for an opinion), Arguing (provides justification to a claim), Assertive Questioning (communicates information and at the same time asks for confirmation/rejection), Asserting (asserts information or communicates an opinion), Rhetorical Questioning (expressing an opinion in the form of an interrogative), Disagreeing (declares not to share the interlocutor’s opinion), Pure Questioning (s seeking information or asking for an opinion), Default Illocuting (captures an answer to a question) and No Relation | Locution: Tim Stanley : why are you banging on about it?
Proposition: John Ashworth and Daisy Cooper are banging on about the Prime Minister receiving donations | Challenging |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: reproductive rights | I do n't think that the right to have an abortion is a `` basic human '' right , and it 's not even close to being equivalent in importance as bodily autonomy or reproductive rights are for women . |
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: I beg to differ. If you read Mark 10:6-9, it explains that a man and woman are made for each other and if a man puts his wife away and marries another, it is adultry.\nIf this man was a preacher, it looks like he would show where the Bible says that a woman and woman should get married in order to condone same sex marriages.
Response: Actually that passage does not define a marriage. \nIt just says that a man shouldn't divorce his wife.\nIt does say that in the beginning god made man and woman.\nYou can infer whatever you wish about that, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about a marriage being strictly between a man and a woman.\nBesides, if current laws were actually rooted in the Bible, in this passage, then divorce would be illegal. But our laws are NOT rooted in the Bible, so the passage is irrelevant. \nI realize you were addressing a different point but I just had to respond.\nHere is the whole context though:\n | 20.0 |
Given an argument, which of the candidates is the best counterargument to it? All arguments in the same debate with opposite stance are candidates. The task is to find the best among all on-topic counterarguments. | Argument: Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent
The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”. [1]
[1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html
Candidate 1: "People have a right to know where their information comes from
Democracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.
[1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich"
Candidate 2: "Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups
In the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax. [1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world.
[1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501"
Candidate 3: "On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas."
Candidate 4: "People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funders. A blanket obligation of all think tanks to reveal their funding allows for open discourse and thus more space to discuss the ideas themselves."
Candidate 5: "The status quo promotes non-transparency
Non-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards. [1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation. [2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers. [3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field.
[1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012, http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1679/the_state_funding_swindle_how_left_wing_think_tanks_are_pulling_taxpayer_funded_wool_over_our_eyes
[2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554
[3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich"
Candidate 6: "Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views
Think tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias. [2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies. [3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all.
[1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
[2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998 http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Whats-in-a-Label/
[3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3768536.htm"
Candidate 7: "Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public."
Candidate 8: "Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks
Even think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. competition in factors that do not improve the products of the market, makes them unable to make rational decisions about their funding if, for instance, potential funders want to contribute only on the condition that this funding be made public. As a consequence, the advent of organisations who call for transparency has been praised by prominent think tanks like the New Economics Foundation. [1] By depriving everybody of the strategic tool of revealing none or only a part of their funding, think tanks cannot be pressured into hiding or providing certain information about their funders, and they can thus act more independently.
[1] Read, Sam. “Think tank funding matters: it’s central to democracy”, the nef blog, 22 June 2012, http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/think-tank-funding-matters-its-central-to-democracy"
Candidate 9: "This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]
[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554"
| This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]
[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554
|
Does the following argumentative component "attack" or "support" the target argumentative component? | Argumentative component: "reducing the proportion of violent content in TV shows could, to some degree, decrease the overall crime rate", target argumentative component: "it would be rather necessary for governments to establish an intensive law that prevents teenagers from watching these violent and brutal TV Shows and movies" | support |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | The world has its eye on the trade war between the US and China, but a more dangerous confrontation between the two nations is playing out in the background: the worsening disagreement over the "One China" policy. Last week, Reuters reported that Washington was on its way to approving $2 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan. The move indicates the Trump administration isn't trying to create an atmosphere conducive to trade negotiations and suggests that disputes between the US and China are more likely headed toward escalation than resolution. "Taiwan is the thing the Chinese care most about hands down," said Susan Thornton, a former assistant US secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. "Anything where the US is interfering with Taiwan hits a national third rail." The One China policy — under which the US acknowledges China's claim that Taiwan is not an independent nation but rather a part of China, without taking a side — was developed during the Nixon administration to improve US-China relations. The idea is central to China's identity as a modern world power, and since President Donald Trump took office the US has challenged that notion repeatedly. Despite protests from Beijing, Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act, legislation permitting high-level talks between US and Taiwanese officials, last year. In May, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, met with David Lee, one of Taiwan's top security officials. This meeting came just after Taiwan renamed its unofficial embassy in Washington the Taiwan Council for US Affairs. The old name, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, neglected to mention Taiwan or the US. The Trump administration has also sold arms to Taiwan before, as have previous administrations, but this $2 billion arms sale digs at a delicate wound during a delicate time. It's a big sale, even in a world where weapons are becoming more and more expensive. And though it does not include the US's top fighter jets, it is sure to antagonize Beijing before the G20 meeting at the end of the month in Osaka, Japan, where US and Chinese heads of state are expected to meet. On Thursday, a Chinese Foreign Ministry representative, Geng Shuang, responded to the news of the arms sale with a warning, according to the Chinese state media outlet Xinhua. "We urge the US side to stop arms sales to Taiwan and sever their military ties, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, to avoid serious damage to China-US relations as well as to the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait," Geng said. It's just imagination In January 2017, China — most likely aware that the incoming US president was unfamiliar with the complexities of US-China relations — clarified its position on Taiwan in a rare US media interview by the Chinese Foreign Ministry official Lu Kang. "Because this issue touches upon China's core interest, by no means is this something that could be negotiated or used as a bargaining chip," he told NBC. " One China policy, 100%." The fight over Taiwan's status started in 1949 after the Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek left the mainland for the island when he was defeated by Mao Zedong's Communist forces. To the Chinese, the island's independence is both a product and a reminder of China's century of humiliation, when China was carved up by foreign powers and then thrown into decades of chaos and civil war after the end of the Qing dynasty. "It's the mythology they've told themselves for years," Thornton said. In that way the One China policy and China's economic nationalism are tied together in the Chinese political imagination. That may seem foreign to the US, where one set of technocrats handles economics and another handles national security, but the merging of the two interests are a response to the China's lost century. And both are being tested by the Trump administration. xi trump While the US-China trade war producing a " tech Cold War" has grabbed headlines, less attention has been paid to escalation in hostilities surrounding the One China policy. This despite the fact that the conflict has all the trappings of the Cold War era. China sees US interference in Taiwan as an encroachment on its sphere of influence. And the US sees Chinese involvement in the Caribbean similarly. Back in February 2018 after a speech in Texas, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin American nations of China's "imperial" ambitions, invoking the Monroe Doctrine. "Latin America does not need new imperial powers that seek only to benefit their own people," he said. "China's state-led model of development is reminiscent of the past. It doesn't have to be this hemisphere's future." All of this matters for Taiwan because the more involved a country is with China, the more pressure China puts on it to wipe Taiwan off the map. Earlier this year the Dominican Republic dropped its recognition of Taiwan at China's behest. El Salvador did it in 2018, and Panama in 2017. There may be a Cold War-reminiscent motivation behind this arms sale as well. Taiwan's anti-China president, Tsai Ing-wen, faces an uphill battle for reelection next year. In Washington the sale may be seen as a way to bolster her chances of winning. "One thing US administrations tend to think, which may or may not be true," Thornton said, "is that selling weapons to Taiwan helps political candidates show that they have US support and can stand up to China." | approving $2 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan. Taiwan is the thing the Chinese care most about hands down," said Susan Thornton, a former assistant US secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Anything where the US is interfering with Taiwan hits a national third rail." under which the US acknowledges China's claim that Taiwan is not an independent nation but rather a part of China, without taking a side — was developed during the Nixon administration to improve US-China relations since President Donald Trump took office the US has challenged that notion repeatedly. Despite protests from Beijing, Trump signed the Taiwan Travel Act, legislation permitting high-level talks between US and Taiwanese officials, In May, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, met with David Lee, one of Taiwan's top security officials. This meeting came just after Taiwan renamed its unofficial embassy in Washington the Taiwan Council for US Affairs. The old name, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, neglected to mention Taiwan or the US The Trump administration has also sold arms to Taiwan before, as have previous administrations, but this $2 billion arms sale digs at a delicate wound during a delicate time top fighter jets, it is sure to antagonize Beijing before the G20 meeting at the end of the month in Osaka, Japan, where US and Chinese heads of state are expected to meet. We urge the US side to stop arms sales to Taiwan and sever their military ties, prudently and properly handle Taiwan-related issues, to avoid serious damage to China-US relations as well as to the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait," US-China relations — clarified its position on Taiwan "Because this issue touches upon China's core interest, by no means is this something that could be negotiated or used as a bargaining chip," ," Thornton said. In that way the One China policy and China's economic nationalism are tied together in the Chinese political imagination. where one set of technocrats handles economics and another handles national security, but the merging of the two interests are a response to the China's lost century. And both are being tested by the Trump administration the more pressure China puts on it to wipe Taiwan off the map Taiwan's anti-China president, Tsai Ing-wen, faces an uphill battle for reelection next year. "is that selling weapons to Taiwan helps political candidates show that they have US support and can stand up to China." |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Keeping animals in zoos
Since the time they were introduced zoos have both been supported and criticized. Many believe that zoos could be very entertaining and ecologically important, whereas, others think that keeping animals in captivity is totally wrong. Both sides will be discussed before a reasonable conclusion is drawn.
First, critics of zoology argue that keeping animals in captivity is wrong because animals should be considered non-human persons and they should have the right of having freedom. This is so unfair for them to be taken out of their natural environment and to be kept in small enclosures. That is because, many zoos, especially the ones in developing countries, do not provide care and attention which their animals require. The animals are often undernourished and do not have sufficient quality and quantity of medical treatment. In addition, sometimes animals from hot countries have to survive in the cold winter of somewhere in Europe.
On the other hand, the advocators believe that zoos provide the public with good entertainment and also help to ensure the balance of the ecology. Many people, especially young children enjoy going to zoos and see their favorite animals, cute baby-born animals and the animals that are from the different corners of the world. Zoos provide educational information about the lives of different animals to the public. Also, zoos play an important role in reserving many breeds of animal and preventing them from being missing from life. This is due to the fact that, in zoos, animals are kept in enclosures which simulate their own habitats and also endangered animals are being protected from their predators or hunters. Thus zoos are needed to keep the nature balanced.
In conclusion, both of the arguments have strong supports, but in my own view, more good come from zoos than bad. However, it is hoped that the standards of zoos should be leveled up to ensure that the animals in zoos are provided with good care and attention.
| more good come from zoos than bad
both of the arguments have strong supports
keeping animals in captivity is wrong
animals should be considered non-human persons and they should have the right of having freedom
This is so unfair for them to be taken out of their natural environment and to be kept in small enclosures
many zoos, especially the ones in developing countries, do not provide care and attention which their animals require
The animals are often undernourished and do not have sufficient quality and quantity of medical treatment
sometimes animals from hot countries have to survive in the cold winter of somewhere in Europe
zoos provide the public with good entertainment and also help to ensure the balance of the ecology
Many people, especially young children enjoy going to zoos and see their favorite animals, cute baby-born animals and the animals that are from the different corners of the world
Zoos provide educational information about the lives of different animals to the public
zoos play an important role in reserving many breeds of animal and preventing them from being missing from life
in zoos, animals are kept in enclosures which simulate their own habitats and also endangered animals are being protected from their predators or hunters
zoos are needed to keep the nature balanced |
Generate an argument that follows the given topic, stance and argument aspect. | Topic: cloning
Stance: CON
Aspect: stop | I think the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for good guys with guns to shoot them first , and that 's not happening in this case because of some stupid law about `` assault weapons '' or whatever bullshit they 're trying to push through Congress . |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "The fact that a company is a large one, this means that it's having a considerable success", argumentative component 2: "a large company can give better salaries than a smaller one" | Yes |
Are the two argumentative components below, taken from essays, linked? | Argumentative component 1: "the number of unemployment rate has risen to 15 percent in several globalized and non-globalized countries", argumentative component 2: "Many well-qualified and well-educated person cannot earn some money to live comfortably" | Yes |
How high is the likelihood (0 - 1) that you would recommend your friend to use the following argument as is in a speech supporting/contesting the topic, regardless of your personal opinion? | cosmetic surgery forminors is necessary especially for those who have suffered from devastating accidents that have deformed their bodies | 0.909449159 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response agrees or disagrees with the quote. -5 means strong disagreement, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong agreement. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: A gay man can marry any woman that will have him. A lesbian can marry any man that will have her. You are not denied the right to marry...so long as you comply with the rules of marriage...including the one about one male and one female.
Response: emoticonXFrazzled\nFrankly, that\'s like saying "You can\'t be Jewish, but you can pick any sect of Christianity you want to. You can\'t wear a star of david, but you can wear a cross.\nSo that\'s *equal*"...\nYou\'re saying we can marry HETEROSEXUALLY, so HOMOSEXUALS must pretend that\'s equal???\nMakes no sense...\n | -2.6 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is emotional or factual. -5 means strong emotional, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong factual. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: This has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Response: Well... someone hasn\'t been following the campaigns for the so-called "protection of marriage" amendments, federal or state. | 1.33333 |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: That was the underlying agenda which motivated this racist jerk who also happens to be black.
Response: Indeed the court's reasoning may have been as racist as your own. \nIndeed, the article describes how the court's reasoning was even a surprise to the police officers' attorney because it was so out of line with what is expected of conduct during arrests.\nShe was not violent and she had an obvious health condition.\nWhatever you think about what she was intending to do or not -- though she communicated quite clearly -- is rather irrelevant given the offense and those surrounding circumstances.\nI bet this is your opinion ANY time the story concerns a black defendent and a white police officer. Because you're a racist.\n | -1.66667 |
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 state provides functions which are utterly essential.
Anarchist groups are very naive in believing that we could survive without states, states provide a countless functions that would not exist otherwise. Things like the fire service would be very hard to organise as a community, it is likely that that very few people would volunteer to perform such a dangerous job. There are many vital services that require economies of scale to exist in order to provide the specialized services. This means that something larger than a local community is needed to provide it. For example communities could provide basic healthcare but could they provide the cutting edge research necessary to improve it, and then the expensive treatments to be able to take advantage of that research?
Legal systems are dependent on the state for their existence, without a centralised system of law and a state to appoint judges and organise and fund courts and the police. Under anarchy law and order is likely to look a lot more like mob justice. Without any sort of police force or judiciary it would be highly likely that a community would be able to prevent crime.
Candidate 1: "The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.
The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1
These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them.
[1] http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/22/4/437.extract"
Candidate 2: "Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.
Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve."
Candidate 3: "This is an unfair portrayal of Freetown Christiana. Soft drug use is something that the people of Christiana have decided is not immoral or illegal and is something that they tolerate in their society. They should not be criticised for people who do things which are totally within the rules of Freetown Christiana society."
Candidate 4: "COUNTERPOINT
These could still be provided in a different way. These issues can be dealt with quite sufficiently within small communities, in the case of a fire people the whole community would likely assist in fire-fighting duties whilst equipment could be owned communally.
Anarchist communities do not necessarily have no rules, these rules can be adequately enforced by the community and the community can collectively decide what to do about rule breakers."
Candidate 5: "The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives.
There is nothing that states provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves by working together as communities. All the state seeks to do is oppress the people, forcing us to obey laws and pay taxes we did not consent to. In many cases the state goes out of its way to deprive people of their basic needs, for instance when the state evicts squatters from houses that were being left unused, the UK for example is moving to criminalize squatting [1] ; or when the state has property laws that keep wealth in the hands of the few whilst the many struggle to survive as has been the case in the United States, particularly in the 19thCentury when President Hayes argued “There can be no republican institutions with vast masses of property permanently in a few hands, and large masses of voters without property”. [2]
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/21/plans-to-criminalise-squa_n_932333.html
[2]"
Candidate 6: "Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence."
Candidate 7: "States are never truly representative of the people.
Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2]
The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3]
Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.
[1] http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6842054/obamas-guantanamo-failure.thtml
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8078454/Spending-review-David-Cameron-and-Nick-Clegg-apologise-for-broken-promises.html
[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politic"
Candidate 8: "Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.
Even if the state is never overthrown anarchism will always have something important to say. Anarchist groups were at the forefront of resistance groups in world war two, and today they are at the forefront of protests against the state whenever it tries to take even more from the worst off in society, for example in anti cuts protests in the UK. [1]
Anarchist communities like Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen exist as centres of peace and culture, by standing outside of society it provides a useful commentary on society as well as being an example for how people can live more freely without a state.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8409048/TUC-protest-march-anarchists-on-the-rampage-in-London.html"
| COUNTERPOINT
These could still be provided in a different way. These issues can be dealt with quite sufficiently within small communities, in the case of a fire people the whole community would likely assist in fire-fighting duties whilst equipment could be owned communally.
Anarchist communities do not necessarily have no rules, these rules can be adequately enforced by the community and the community can collectively decide what to do about rule breakers.
|
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. | Over the past four decades, multiple experiments have been performed to estimate the response of plants to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) under field conditions. Agricultural crops have been of particular interest due to the strong concerns for future food security and safety [1] and to explore the potential advantages of the fact that rising CO2 may stimulate plant growth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2] projected that CO2 concentrations are likely to be in the interval 420–1300 ppm (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, respectively) by the year 2100. Consequently, to assess possible yield stimulations, there is a need to estimate crop responses to elevated CO2 (eCO2) over a range of concentrations, although single experiments mostly used only one or sometimes two levels of eCO2 treatment. Wheat (Triticum aestivum Linnaeus) is one of the most studied crops regarding eCO2 responses, since it is one of the major food crops globally. Plant growth is generally stimulated by eCO2, resulting in higher yields [3]. The growth stimulation is a result of both enhanced photosynthesis (C3 crops), but also improved water use efficiency (C3 and C4 crops) due to reduced stomatal conductance [4]. Short-term plant responses to eCO2 usually include a higher net CO2 assimilation, while downregulation of photosynthesis can occur over longer time scales (growing season) [5]. The CO2 fertilization effect on C3 photosynthesis will mainly occur until the concentration is saturated at ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), which is not the case at the current atmospheric concentration (400 ppm). In addition, the water saving effect can significantly improve plant performance [6,7]. However, it remains uncertain how these effects translate into crop yield responses over a wider range of CO2 concentrations under field conditions. Enclosure systems, such as open top chambers (OTC), have been widely used in CO2 field experiments, but also questioned since they alter the micro-climate of the plants and thus may modify the magnitude of crop responses to eCO2 [8]. Comparison of conditions in OTCs to the open field show that temperatures and vapor pressure deficits are higher inside chambers and airflow is altered in the plant canopy [9,10]. The use of OTCs will also reduce transmission of solar radiation and shift the ratio between diffuse and total radiation. The field tunnels (e.g., Rawson [11]) used in some eCO2 experiments with crops are likely to alter the micro-climate in a similar manner as OTCs. Furthermore, it is questionable whether results from experiments with plants rooted in pots can be extrapolated to field conditions. Potted plants have a restricted rooting volume that may affect the response to eCO2 [12]. At the same time, plants grown in pots are likely to experience a higher, light interception, since they are usually not surrounded by a closed canopy, which may exaggerate effects. Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) systems have been developed to create a less artificial experimental setup compared to enclosure systems like OTCs and tunnels. On the other hand, FACE systems have the drawback of not being able to reach strongly elevated concentrations for eCO2 treatments (no experiments using CO2 concentrations above 600 ppm) and possibly less stable concentration levels that may lead to underestimation of plant CO2 responses [13]. In addition to grain yield as such, there are a number of yield variables of both agronomical and economical importance for grain yield, which are critical to study in order to understand how eCO2 affects the growth pattern of crops. In the present study we included the following yield components and aspects of grain physical characteristics: harvest index, grain number, grain mass, and specific grain mass. Harvest index represents the fraction of the total aboveground biomass found in the harvestable products at maturity, which is central in crop breeding as a measure of the efficiency with which resources (solar radiation, water, and fertilizers) are used and converted into the desired harvested plant component. Grain mass (equivalent to 1000-grain weight) and specific grain mass (volume weight or test weight) are quality aspects that affect the market price of wheat grain. Higher values of these variables are related to a larger flour yield, while low values indicate small and malformed grains of poor quality [14,15]. Historical improvements in wheat grain yield has been positively correlated to an increase in grain number per unit area [16]. There is, however, a trade-off between increasing the number of grains and grain mass if photosynthetic rates remain unchanged [17]. The CO2-induced grain yield (mass per unit area) stimulation can be a result of increased grain number (per unit area) and/or average grain mass. The CO2 effect on wheat grain yield was reviewed by Amthor [18], where response functions showed that studies performed in laboratory chambers and greenhouses compared to field experiments had almost doubled yield stimulation per increased ppm in the range of 350–750 ppm. There was, however, only one FACE experiment conducted at that time. Using meta-analysis, Wang, Feng, and Schjoerring [4] estimated the overall CO2 impacts on wheat crop physiology and yield, showing an average yield stimulation of 24%, and an effect of similar magnitude was estimated by van der Kooi et al. [19]. In line with Amthor [18], Wang, Feng and Schjoerring [4] found differences in yield response between enclosure systems, where closed-top chambers had a yield stimulation close to 40%, significantly higher than all other types of exposure systems (OTCs, FACE, and greenhouses). They also found that the grain yield stimulation by eCO2 was significantly stronger in potted plants compared to field grown; however, not taking into account that there is an association between rooting environment and the enclosure system used. Studies with greenhouses and closed-top-chambers mainly used pots, while plants in FACE experiments were grown in field soil and OTC studies use both potted and field rooted plants. | experiments have been performed to estimate the response of plants to higher concentrations of CO2 crops have been of particular interest due to the strong concerns for future food security and to explore the potential advantages of the fact that rising CO2 may stimulate plant growth The I P C C projected that CO2 concentrations are likely to be in the interval 420–1300 ppm by the year 2100 Wheat is one of the most studied crops regarding eCO2 responses since it is one of the major food crops globally Plant growth is generally stimulated by eCO2 resulting in higher yields growth stimulation is a result of enhanced photosynthesis but also improved water use efficiency due to reduced stomatal conductance plant responses to eCO2 usually include a higher net CO2 assimilation The CO2 fertilization effect on photosynthesis will mainly occur until the concentration is saturated which is not the case at the current atmospheric concentration the water saving effect can significantly improve plant performance The CO2-induced grain yield stimulation can be a result of increased grain number and average grain mass Wang Feng and Schjoerring estimated the overall CO2 impacts on wheat crop physiology and yield showing an average yield stimulation of 24% and an effect of similar magnitude was estimated by van der Kooi et al |
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: Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost
Nuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity.
The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2.
Wind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight.
"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple."3
1 'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam', 2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007, 3"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006:
Candidate 1: "For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.
Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.
1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,"
Candidate 2: "Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency
In addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency. The European Union is a net importer for energy, and as such is reliant on Russia and Norway, predominantly, for oil and gas supplies. Events such as the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies demonstrated that the EU's energy can easily be disrupted by political situations outside its control1. It also means that the EU could be drawn into disputes between Russia and neighbouring countries because it has a vested interest in the region. This could set a dangerous precedent, where the EU could be intimidated by Russia, because the EU relies so heavily on Russian gas. Building more nuclear power stations would ensure a more secure supply of energy, thereby avoiding the potential for energy supply to become a politically charged issue on an international scale.
1 'Russia-Ukraine gas dispute', Wikipedia"
Candidate 3: "Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1] .
The focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables' [2] .
[1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.
[2] The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008"
Candidate 4: "Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe
It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. "The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year"2.
Further, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk.
Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us?
1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", Washington Post, 4/16/06""
Candidate 5: "Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1.
It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations.
1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists"
Candidate 6: "The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record and it is haunted by the constant risk of meltdown or explosion. "No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack"1. Chernobyl and Japan's Fukushima plant has shown the world what happens when cooling systems fail.
The effects on the local people and the environment are devastating. It cannot be a coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the population around nuclear plants. It is perfectly true that modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not completely safe. It is not worth the risk.
The dumping of nuclear waste also presents a host of problems. The Nuclear Inspectorate in the UK has been very critical of safety standards within the industry; it is too dominated by the profit motive to really care about safety and too shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. According to Agenda 2000: "The problem of nuclear safety in some candidate countries causes serious concerns to the EU... and should be urgently and effectively addressed. It is imperative that solutions, including closure where required, be found to these issues in accordance with the Community nuclear acquis and a "nuclear safety culture" as established in the western world as soon as possible"2.
1"End the nuclear age." Greenpeace. October 2008 2 European Nuclear Threats Old and New, Nuclear Monitor, November 2003, pp.3-5,"
Candidate 7: "Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources
In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] .
It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] )
[1] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006
[2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia."
Candidate 8: "Nuclear power is very expensive
For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive.
Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great.
1 'Cost of nuclear power', 2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,"
Candidate 9: "We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.
This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.
1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,"
Candidate 10: "The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable
The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: "There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of." This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1
1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also: http://www.economist.com/node/15865280?story_id=15865280"
Candidate 11: "Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1.
Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built.
1The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,"
Candidate 12: "Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it
Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] .
[1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels.
[2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1.
[3] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006"
Candidate 13: "Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1.
Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons.
1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,"
Candidate 14: "There is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit with sufficient investment; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions. Any given country can in principle become self-sufficient in terms of renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. Kazakhstan became the world's number one supplier of uranium in 2009, and other major producers such as Russia, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan may not be reliable1. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil.
1 'Kazakhstan plans to become global leader in uranium production by 2009', Silk Road Intelligencer, 23rd July 2008,"
Candidate 15: "Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests
Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings important security benefits. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran whose membership fluctuates), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology1. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful rather than selling their skills to the highest rogue bidder. The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities. This ensures that facilities cannot surreptitiously be used to facilitate the creation of nuclear weapons.
1 'Nuclear weapons not appealing to all countries' by Renee Montagne, npr, 17th April 2006,"
| Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1.
It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations.
1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists
|
Given the following essay as context, and a list of argumentative components extracted from the essay. Label each argumentative component as "major claim", "claim", or "premise". | Essay: Should people be forced to stop working?
The appropriate age at which a person should stop working is now a much debated issue in the society. Some opine that people should be given the option to choose when they want to call it a day while others oppose this notion. In my personal point of view, the right age for a person to retire should be around 60 years old. I, for one, strongly agree that age should be set as a criterion for people to retire at the aforementioned age due to several reasons that I shall discuss below.
First and foremost, if senior workers dominate the working sector, there will be lesser job opportunities for the fresh graduates. As a result, most of them will be forced to take up careers which are poles apart from what they had studied for. To illustrate this further, a medical graduate might find it very disheartened when he had to spend around five precious years studying medicine and at the end of the day, he will have to take up another profession rather than doctor due to the insufficient job opportunities available. On top of that, due to the lack of genuine passion on the work which was not of their option, there is a greater possibility for their performance standard to dwindle at their workplace.
Apart from that, not all elderly workers are physically well. Beyond that age, a large proportion of them have an elevated chance of contracting a multitude of health problems such as stress related diseases and cardiovascular illnesses. To cite an example, the stressful life that an aged teacher goes through will definitely take a toll on him. Consequently, they will not be able to give their best in whatever they are doing. Besides, the academic institution will have to pay for his medical bills, resulting in more loss for the institution. Thus, it would indeed be better if at an older age, opportunities are given to the younger ones.
Admittedly, the expertise of the senior workers who had retired should never be underestimated. Their invaluable experiences and knowledge in their respective fields such as engineering, medicine, and law can certainly be beneficial to the younger generation. Hence, it is highly recommended that the retiree come over to the companies or hospitals to have regular sessions with the present staffs to bridge the gap between them and to pass on their knowledge.
In conclusion, it is indeed evident that age limit should be set for retirement. There will come a certain time when the older generation should hand over the responsibility to the fresh comers who are certainly waiting to be given a choice to prove themselves. After all, retirement not only marks the end of an individual, but also gives him a chance to make up for what he has lost throughout his working life.
Argumentative components: the right age for a person to retire should be around 60 years old
strongly agree that age should be set as a criterion for people to retire at the aforementioned age
if senior workers dominate the working sector, there will be lesser job opportunities for the fresh graduates
most of them will be forced to take up careers which are poles apart from what they had studied for
a medical graduate might find it very disheartened when he had to spend around five precious years studying medicine and at the end of the day, he will have to take up another profession rather than doctor due to the insufficient job opportunities available
due to the lack of genuine passion on the work which was not of their option, there is a greater possibility for their performance standard to dwindle at their workplace
it would indeed be better if at an older age, opportunities are given to the younger ones
not all elderly workers are physically well
Beyond that age, a large proportion of them have an elevated chance of contracting a multitude of health problems such as stress related diseases and cardiovascular illnesses
the stressful life that an aged teacher goes through will definitely take a toll on him
they will not be able to give their best in whatever they are doing
the academic institution will have to pay for his medical bills, resulting in more loss for the institution
it is indeed evident that age limit should be set for retirement
the expertise of the senior workers who had retired should never be underestimated
Their invaluable experiences and knowledge in their respective fields such as engineering, medicine, and law can certainly be beneficial to the younger generation
it is highly recommended that the retiree come over to the companies or hospitals to have regular sessions with the present staffs to bridge the gap between them and to pass on their knowledge | Major claims:
the right age for a person to retire should be around 60 years old
strongly agree that age should be set as a criterion for people to retire at the aforementioned age
it is indeed evident that age limit should be set for retirement
Claims:
the right age for a person to retire should be around 60 years old
strongly agree that age should be set as a criterion for people to retire at the aforementioned age
most of them will be forced to take up careers which are poles apart from what they had studied for
it would indeed be better if at an older age, opportunities are given to the younger ones
it is indeed evident that age limit should be set for retirement
the expertise of the senior workers who had retired should never be underestimated
Premises:
if senior workers dominate the working sector, there will be lesser job opportunities for the fresh graduates
a medical graduate might find it very disheartened when he had to spend around five precious years studying medicine and at the end of the day, he will have to take up another profession rather than doctor due to the insufficient job opportunities available
due to the lack of genuine passion on the work which was not of their option, there is a greater possibility for their performance standard to dwindle at their workplace
not all elderly workers are physically well
Beyond that age, a large proportion of them have an elevated chance of contracting a multitude of health problems such as stress related diseases and cardiovascular illnesses
the stressful life that an aged teacher goes through will definitely take a toll on him
they will not be able to give their best in whatever they are doing
the academic institution will have to pay for his medical bills, resulting in more loss for the institution
Their invaluable experiences and knowledge in their respective fields such as engineering, medicine, and law can certainly be beneficial to the younger generation
it is highly recommended that the retiree come over to the companies or hospitals to have regular sessions with the present staffs to bridge the gap between them and to pass on their knowledge |
Identify all argumentative text spans in the following essay. | Essay: Giving mobile phones to the unemployed
Today, the rate of unemployment is on the rise and is seriously being debated by many. Some opine that the best method to minimize this problem is by providing the unemployed with hand phones that have access to the Internet. They also believe that this solution is the most appropriate way to utilize the public money. Nevertheless, I agree to this solution only to a certain degree because I feel that giving those with no work a mobile phone each is a total waste of money.
In a positive point of view, when people without jobs have hand phones that have access to the Internet, they will be able to browse the net for more job opportunities. For example, they can surf the The Star Onlines' work section to find a job that is suitable for them. With the help of the net, they can also do more research on the work that they have found apart from looking up on how they can prepare themselves for the job. Not only that, the mobile phones can also be used to make calls with the companies in which they would like to work with. In short, if the government provides those without work with a mobile phone, they will be able to find themselves an occupation in order to live and survive.
Nonetheless, looking from another perspective, supplying hand phones to the unemployed is a waste of the taxpayers' money. This is because the money instead of being used to supply the electronic gadget can be used for other useful purposes for the country. To illustrate this further, the money can be used to build more amenities for the public or given to the poor so that they can use it to help them earn a living. To conclude, the money can be used for other intentions rather than giving hand phones to the unemployed.
Furthermore, when hand phones are provided for free, many would want to take advantage of this opportunity. It will not be surprising that in order to obtain a mobile phone, they make themselves jobless. Some might even go to the extent of lying that they are on unemployment to make them eligible to get the phones. In this context, the public's money is spent worthlessly. On top of that, till now, there are no surveys or evidences that prove this method in effective in reducing the rate of unemployment.
To put it in a nutshell, the suggestion of providing those who are jobless with mobile phones that are accessible to internet is not a proper and the best way to trim down the rate of unemployment. I suggest the government look into the background of the people in depth before giving out hand phones to them. I strongly believe that the public money should be utilized for the benefit of the society and not just for some of them who are not willing to put in more effort to find them a proper work.
| giving those with no work a mobile phone each is a total waste of money
providing those who are jobless with mobile phones that are accessible to internet is not a proper and the best way to trim down the rate of unemployment
when people without jobs have hand phones that have access to the Internet, they will be able to browse the net for more job opportunities
if the government provides those without work with a mobile phone, they will be able to find themselves an occupation in order to live and survive
they can surf the The Star Onlines' work section to find a job that is suitable for them
With the help of the net, they can also do more research on the work that they have found apart from looking up on how they can prepare themselves for the job
the mobile phones can also be used to make calls with the companies in which they would like to work with
supplying hand phones to the unemployed is a waste of the taxpayers' money
the money can be used for other intentions rather than giving hand phones to the unemployed
the money instead of being used to supply the electronic gadget can be used for other useful purposes for the country
the money can be used to build more amenities for the public or given to the poor so that they can use it to help them earn a living
when hand phones are provided for free, many would want to take advantage of this opportunity
It will not be surprising that in order to obtain a mobile phone, they make themselves jobless
Some might even go to the extent of lying that they are on unemployment to make them eligible to get the phones
the public's money is spent worthlessly
till now, there are no surveys or evidences that prove this method in effective in reducing the rate of unemployment |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Gay marriage
Quote: BUt it comes down to gay people being harmed by not being allowed to marry. Any time a group is excluded because of someone elses religious beliefs that group is harmed.
Response: Marriage is a secular condition set up by various Societies over the millenia and one of the prerequisites set out is that such a union should be between people of different genders.\nReligion has supported this and sanctified it but did not invent it.\nYou don't curse the Church you lobby Society to see if you can effect a change. People who believe the different gender aspect are entitled to lobby for no change. | 1.33333 |
Select the pragmatic category (the communicative purpose) for each sentence of the given peer review. The pragmatic categories are Recap (summarizes the content without evaluating it), Strength (express an explicit positive opinion), Weakness (express an explicit negative opinion), Todo (recommendations and questions), Other and Structure (labeling headers and other elements added by the review to structure the text). | Reviewer response for version 1
The article describes an R package (gprofiler2) that wraps around the REST interface of a g:Profiler web service.
The paper outlines the method used to access the API, and explains that providing an R API makes it easier to integrate with the functionality of other R packages.
The description of the software is sufficient and complementary to the source code repository (and backed by a Zenodo archive).
The examples given nicely demonstrate the functionality and I tried many of them in rstudio (some comments below).
The visualisation, as is most functionality, is inherited from the website, and as such benefits from a larger user base.
The choice of the combination of having the code base under version control, archiving on Zenodo, and distribution via CRAN shows high-quality standards.
A test suite, unfortunately, is missing, and adding it is recommended.
Furthermore, it could be interesting to explore curl as a replacement of RCurl, as I had trouble with SSL certificates with the RCurl package on Windows (but not essential).
I can build the package from source.
When applying a regular CRAN check on the package I get a couple of warnings and notes, but none that are affecting this paper.
I left two source code suggestions: https://github.com/egonw/r-gprofiler2/pull/1 .
I also like to note that I found out that the interactive plot does not seem to work in RStudio: I only get an empty window.
Regarding the content of the article, I have the following questions.
First, the argument that the computation is done on a central server as an advantage depends on the use case and is not generally true.
For example, it requires all information to be shared with the server, which is not possible for everyone that may be interested in the server.
As such, one could imagine having a Docker with the webservice and method parameters in the R package to interact with servers with a different domain or IP address.
This is, however, just a future feature request.
Second, regarding the data used in the functionality, I have three questions.
How is the ordering of pathways in for KEGG, Reactome, and WikiPathways defined?
For Reactome, I can imagine their own hierarchy is used.
What about KEGG and WikiPathways?
Is the Pathway Ontology used for the latter?
A similar question applies when using custom GMT files?
The ordering is then defined by the other in the file, I assume?
Finally, in the Reproducibility section, but it is not clear to me why version information is not given for the data GO, KEGG, Reactome, etc.
I would strongly suggest providing that information too.
I would suggest clarifying the first two in the manuscript, but the last one may require additional functionality.
Alternatively, the article should be clear that version information is only given for a subset of used resources.
A third topic I like to ask about is the following:
If g:Profile is an ELIXIR RIR, have you consider adding the option to use the Identifiers.org prefixes, e.g. "wikipathways" in addition to "WP"?
Fourth, the "Use case" uses packages that need to be installed.
The keep symmetry with the description of gprofiler2 itself, please consider adding install instructions for these Bioconductor packages.
Last, I collected a number of small textual suggestions and have annotated these with hypothes.is: https://hyp.is/rE4tRurJEeqMHW_RYqO0xA/f1000research.com/articles/9-709 .
These suggestions include a number of title fixes in the bibliography where article titles are all converted to lower case, which looks weird for names of tools. | Structure
Recap
Recap
Strength
Strength
Recap
Strength
Todo
Todo
Other
Other
Other
Weakness
Structure
Weakness
Weakness
Other
Other
Other
Todo
Other
Todo
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Todo
Structure
Todo
Recap
Todo
Other
Todo |
Given a topic, a quote (a statement) and a response to the quote, on a scale from -5 to 5, decide to what extent the response is attacking or respectful. -5 means strong attacking, 0 means neutral, and 5 means strong respectful. | Topic: Abortion
Quote: "Abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal. Since Abortion is legal, it cannot be murder."\nThis is the formal structure of the ridiculous and false arguments to suggest that abortion is not murder.\n"It cannot be murder, because abortion is legal." Amazingly, you citizen-slaves fall for this illogical and ridiculous rant.\nThe argument is illogical because it pre-supposes that abortion not being murder is valid in the premise. It does not matter if you do it, or the law supposes the premise True.\nIt is also illogical because the definition of murder used has an arbitrary operator ("illegal"), and no legitimate definition can have such an arbitrary operator as a part.\nThe idea that deliberately killing a womb-trapped child is not murder is insane, lie-based and ridiculous.
Response: The purposeful taking of life regulated by the government is something that is decided by the people. The people decide what determines what is allowable and what is not. When it is acceptable and when it is not. This is done in agreement, obviously not unanimous. Theses laws are created by the view of society at the time. Our society permits the ability to change those laws as our values change. \nYou may call it murder, but you are wrong. There is no logical argument you can present to make your view correct. To suggest that legal abortion is anything else is an expression of your frustration why others don't share your views. There is no logic in your argument it's pure emotion and an immature understanding of how to cope with problems that don't go your way. \nIf you think your view is indeed the view that is best for the people then be thankful in the US the opportunity exists for you to effect that. I can assure you though lieing about it, sensationalizing it, bullying people about it isn't going to get many people to consider you. \nPlease do us both a favor before you go off on a discourse of the rights, or feelings or value of the fetus remember what I said about we as a society decided what is acceptable and what is not. We make these laws for ourselves for that reason, because we do attempt to value life. That attempt does not always satisfy all of the people all of the time, but it never will.\nI don't need a formula to understand how our society functions nor do I stomp my foot and throw insults or intimidate people who don't see you being right. Nor would I justify behavior that from anybody else concerning something of less import would be unacceptable. If you don't like the law, then do something about it. If this is what you deem to be the best and most effective way to do that, I suggest you find a to become comfortable with it. | 3.8 |
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
Weber and Soneson present HDCytoData, a Bioconductor data package providing pre-formatted high-dimensional cytometry data.
The preparation of the datasets as SummarizedExperiment and flowSet objects makes these amendable for benchmarking, a crucial step when developing new methods.
My main comment centres around the contribution of new data.
While the curated/formatted data in the package have already been useful to the authors in their previous work, the ambition is to make it possible for others to benefit from them and, to enable this in the longer term, to expand the package with additional data.
These contributions are anticipated to come from the original authors and, ideally, also by new contributors.
The contribution procedure, while crucial, (1) isn't described very clearly and, at least in its current form, (2) only applies to seasoned R users/programmers.
These two points constitute a serious barrier to external contributions.
Indeed, the only information that is provided are a list of three required artefacts (objects, scripts and documentation), without details as to how to produce these, nor how to provide them.
I would suggest to add a 'How to contribute' vignette to the package, describing all these aspects, including an example for one of the existing data.
I would also suggest to include a contribution code of conduct, given that external contributions are explicitly advertised.
I would suggest asking new contributors to send a pull request (PR) on Github, with possible alternative methods for those that aren't familiar with GitHub.
The use a PR provides traceability (as opposed to an email, for instance) and publicly recognises the external contribution, as PRs are publicly recorded on GitHub.
I would also suggest to explicitly define how external contributions are to be acknowledged in the contribution guide (for example addition as a 'contributor' in the DESCRIPTION file).
These additions will clarify what is expected for a contribution to be considered, how it will be managed by the authors, and how it will be acknowledged, thus hopefully facilitating the process.
Minor suggestions:
- How can a potential user find out if/when new data have been added to the package?
While `?HDCytoData` gives a list of dataset, a function returning a vector or dataframe with dataset names and possibly some annotation would be useful for programmatic access (given here that `data(package = "HDCytoData")` doesn't work for data on ExperimentHub).
- It could be useful to expand the 'Use cases' section with (1) example calculations of the F1 scores and Rand indices for the clustering example and (2) adding a similar short example for the differential analysis use case.
- I am curious as to why the content of the lmweber/HDCytoData-example isn't included as a vignette in the HDCytoData package (and thus lacking the usual control and documentation that comes with R packages). | Structure
Recap
Strength
Other
Recap
Recap
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Todo
Todo
Todo
Other
Todo
Other
Structure
Todo
Todo
Todo
Weakness |
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. | U.S. conventional arms sales may prevent nuclear proliferation by demonstrating U.S. alliance commitment to the arms recipient. This dissertation understands military alliances as having two components: (a) a formal security guarantee expressed verbally or in writing and (b) visible displays of military support for the ally. Selling conventional arms is an important way the United States provides military support to its ally. Formal security guarantee First, security guarantees vary by the formality of commitment, or how explicit patrons agree to use force to defend their proteges.78 Security guarantees range from unilateral declaratory statements to not attack a country to mutual defense pacts where patrons promise to defend allies. Figure 2.1 on the following page shows the spectrum of commitments. On the lower end of the spectrum are unilateral or universal declaratory statements. These include public statements or declarations of nuclear weapon policy that lack a definite treaty obligation.79 Unilateral declarations are weak commitments because they are not legally binding. They often do not apply in cases of conflict.80 Along with declaratory statements, nuclear weapon states can also offer more specific negative security guarantees. Nuclear weapons states provide negative security guarantees when they agree to the banning of production, testing, and use of nuclear weapons on select countries or regions - nuclear weapon free countries or zones - by signing a treaty.81 ' 82 A number of states have also declared national nuclear weapon free zones through domestic measures.83 Moving along the spectrum, positive security guarantees are stronger than negative commitments.84 A positive security guarantee is "when a nuclear weapons state would consider an attack on its ally, the recipient of the guarantee, to be an attack on its own territory, thus calling forth the use of its conventional and possibly nuclear forces in defense of the aggrieved party."85 There are several main types of positive security guarantees: executive assurances, congressional mandates, and mutual defense treaties. Close allies may enjoy U.S. executive assurances, or assurances from the President given his/her "constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief and executor of U.S. foreign relations."86 Executive assurances vary from statements without binding force to "cooperation" agreements of binding legal force where both governments agree to take appropriate action in the event of aggression or threat of aggression.87 ' 88 Stronger guarantees require Congressional ratification. On the lower end, Congress can issue acts such as the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. The Taiwan Relations Act obligates the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character."89 On the higher end are mutual defense treaties that require Senate ratification and can "commit in advance use of U.S. forces to defend territory of a foreign state." 90,91 | conventional arms sales may prevent nuclear proliferation by demonstrating U.S. alliance commitment to the arms recipient Selling conventional arms is an important way the United States provides military support to its ally. Security guarantees range from unilateral declaratory statements to not attack a country to mutual defense pacts where patrons promise to defend allies Unilateral declarations are weak commitments because they are not legally binding. Along with declaratory statements nuclear weapon states can also offer more specific negative security guarantees Nuclear weapons states provide negative security guarantees A number of states have also declared national nuclear weapon free zones through domestic measures positive security guarantees are stronger than negative commitment positive security guarantee is "when a nuclear weapons state would consider an attack on its ally to be an attack on its own territory Close allies may enjoy U.S. executive assurances, or assurances from the President Executive assurances vary from statements without binding force to "cooperation" agreements of binding legal force where both governments agree to take appropriate action in the event of aggression or threat of aggression |
Create a word-level extractive summary of the argument by “underlining” and/or “highlighting” the evidence in such a way to support the argument being made. | After a military coup removed the country’s first democratically-elected leader in 2013, the US administration decided to cut its substantial military aid to Egypt and to delay planned deliveries of military equipment including F-16 combat aircraft. The souring of relations between Egypt and the US was a driving factor for strengthening the relationship between Egypt and Russia. Russia was quick to confirm its willingness to sell Egypt weapons and consequently there have been significant increases in Russian arms transfers to Egypt. | After a military coup in 2013, the US decided to cut its substantial military aid to Egypt and to delay planned deliveries of military equipment including F-16 combat aircraft The souring between Egypt and the US was a driving factor for strengthening the relationship between Egypt and Russia Russia was quick to confirm its willingness to sell Egypt weapons and there have been significant increases in Russian arms transfers to Egypt. |
Generate an informative conclusion for the given argumentative text. | I'm a current nursing student, and while having a discussion about where nursing was going, one of my friends made the comment that nursing was only a trade and not a profession. I didn't want to believe him but after thinking about it, I think he's correct biased on the following two factors. 1 There's nothing that nurses are allowed to do without existing orders that isn't also in the scope of practice of a CNA. 2 In order to be considered a profession you need a list of qualifications, the primary one violated by nursing is autonomy. That is the ability to make decisions about what and how you'll do your job. If you can solve either of these you'll probably be able to Suggested reading I do think nurses are getting closer to becoming a profession, I just don't thing they we are there yet. I will concede that nurses do make decisions about pt care that does directly affects outcomes, but they aren't allowed to do anything additional under their licence without the approval of an physician. Choosing not to do something that was ordered isn't autonomy. I do not lump Advanced practicing nurses in the title of trade because while they do need a physician to sign off on most of what they do, they get to make the decision about what they will do. Other factors to being a profession that I shamefully ripped straight from Wikipedia. the establishment of a training school the establishment of a university school the establishment of a local association the establishment of a national association the introduction of codes of professional ethics the establishment of state licensing laws Full disclosure This idea sparked from a thread in TodayILearned | Nursing is a trade and NOT a profession... |
Subsets and Splits