instruction
stringclasses 84
values | input
stringlengths 0
21.5k
| output
stringlengths 0
8.95k
|
|---|---|---|
Compare the given two versions of the same claim and determine which one is better (Claim 1 or Claim 2). | Claim 1: Roughly 90% of cheese in the USA is made from fermentation produced chymosin, which is a thickening agent and created using GM e-coli. Before that innovation, cheese was made using rennet, which is the stomach lining of unweaned calves and a biproduct of the veal industry. Returning to this source of chymosin would increase cruelty to animals and substantially increase the cost of cheese.
Claim 2: Roughly 90% of cheese in the USA is made from [fermentation produced chymosin](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/11/02/cheese-gmo-food-die-hard-gmo-opponents-love-and-oppose-a-label-for/), which is a thickening agent and created using GM e-coli. Before that innovation, cheese was made using rennet, which is the stomach lining of unweaned calves and a biproduct of the veal industry. Returning to this source of chymosin would increase cruelty to animals and substantially increase the cost of cheese. | Claim 2 |
An enthymeme is defined here as any missing argumentative discourse unit (ADU) that would complete the logic of a written argument. Is there a problematic enthymematic gap at the position marked with "<mask>" in the following argument? | As I said in the beginning, it's the matter of social and economical facts. Firstly, we have to try to get rid of the reasons that cause crimes. Due to the fact that Turkey has recently experienced very serious crisis which decreases the number of poor population. In other word; in many parts of Turkey, starvation is growing up, depending on this; the robbery, theft are going up as fast as possible as well. Every moment, many innocent people are robbed and injured by robbers. The law can not provide a radical solution for this because first of all, the government has to find solutions to prevent starvation, unemployment, inequality etc. otherwise these events will never be coped with. <mask> Unless the government doesn't provide the public healthy life conditions, any of the punishments even capital punishment will not work and didn't work in the past as well. Another example is, approximately one month ago, a Nigerian woman having a baby out of formal marriage will be stoned to death. The government has decided that she'll be stoned after weaning her baby. Many women from different countries protested this decision in the streets two weeks ago. If capital punishment were a real solution, this woman wouldn't have had a baby out of marriage. She did it in spite of being aware of what'll happen at the end. What a ridiculous thing to decide on an adult's private life, to take permission from an authority if you are allowed to have sexual relationship or not and to have a baby . | No |
Segment the following review into its elementary argumentative units. Elementary argumentative units are the fundamental components of an argument. | The base and headset are battery powered - two AAA in each. I should have expected that with the low price, but would prefer re-chargeable. I use these only for TV. Sitting <6' from the base, the audio is scratchy on most programs. If you are looking for an inexpensive solution, these work well. Looking for quality? Increase your budget. | The base and headset are battery powered - two AAA in each.
I should have expected that with the low price, but would prefer re-chargeable.
I use these only for TV.
Sitting <6' from the base, the audio is scratchy on most programs.
If you are looking for an inexpensive solution, these work well.
Looking for quality? Increase your budget. |
An argumentation should be seen as reasonable if it contributes to the resolution of the given issue in a sufficient way that is acceptable to everyone from the expected target audience. Try to adequately weight your judgments about global acceptability, global relevance, and global sufficiency when judging about reasonableness—unless there is a particular dimension among these that dominates your view of the author’s argumentation. In doubt, give more credit to global acceptability and global relevance than to global sufficiency due to the limited feasibility of the latter. How would you rate the reasonableness of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Peppered moths is the ULTIMATE straw man. <br/> The peppered moths experiment was a bad experiment and did not show evolution. That how ever doesn't mean that other experiments/observations don't show evolution. <br/> There is loads of evidence to support evolution. <br/> Genes <br/> Fossil record <br/> Carbon dating <br/> Geological data <br/> VIRUS studies <br/> Ohh yeah, viruses. <br/> Do you know how strains of viruses become immune to anti biotic? They evolve, and because viruses reproduce very quickly they evolve over a shorter time period and can be observed by humans. <br/> Your flu injections are made using evolution science. | 2 |
Given the following comment-argument pair, decide which of these statements is true: The comment...
...explicitly attacks the argument.
...vaguely/implicitly attacks the argument.
...makes no use of the argument.
...vaguely/implicitly supports the argument.
...explicitly supports the argument. | Comment: If people don't say under god, it doesn't necessarily mean they are atheist or non-Christian. However, if someone does say under god, then it definitely represents god-based religion. Taking it out shouldn't offend anyone; leaving it it will.
Argument: Removing under god would promote religious tolerance | The comment vaguely/implicitly supports the argument. |
An argumentation should be seen as successful in creating credibility if it conveys arguments and other information in a way that makes the author worthy of credence, e.g., by indicating the honesty of the author or by revealing the author’s knowledge or expertise regarding the discussed issue. It should be seen as not successful if rather the opposite holds. Decide in dubio pro reo, i.e., if you have no doubt about the author’s credibility, then do not judge him or her to be not credible. How would you rate the success of the author’s argumentation in creating credibility on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | I think is better to have a lousy Father than to be Fatherless, maybe having one is not that bad, other than living with the idea you didn't had one or with the doubt of how could it be to have one. | 1 |
An argument is emotionally deceptive if the emotions appealed to are used as deceptive tricks to win, derail, or end the discussion. Decide whether the argument is Emotionally Deceptive or Not Emotionally Deceptive | Topic: If i lived next to you in a worn out house in need of repairs and you lived in a 200 thousand dollar house?:
Argument: Have you been standing out in the free cheese line in the hot sun for too long?
Hey, believe it or not, the rich people DO pay lots of other people's taxes for them! But it's the middle class that gets the short end of the stick. The rest of your ramblings sound rather socialistic. Are you insinuating liberals are emulating socialists? I never, in a million years, would have thought THAT (pause for heavy sarcastic sigh). | Is Emotionally Deceptive |
An argument is missing openness if it displays an unwillingness to consider arguments with opposing viewpoints and does not assess the arguments on their merits but simply rejects them out of hand. Decide whether the argument Lacks Openness or Does Not Lack Openness | Topic: I read an article on the internet about california's 'three strikes, you're out' laws on felonies:
Argument: Give me a break. Three strikes equals life! Live with it! You've been warned so don't ask for sympathy because it's "just a little pot". It's not like the third strike was for pot only. He / She committed other crimes just didn't get caught. We as Californians are safer without them on the street. You know what they say... "If you can't do the time then don't do the crime. | Lacks Openness |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it has more details, information, facts, examples, reasons, better arguments, goes deeper or is more specific. | Argument A: I think common good is better than personal pursuit because it's always better to assist other people. When people help each other out its more likely that everything comes out great. You get to become a role model by helping some one that needs your help. Yes personal pursuit is important when you are thinking of going to college. But than you got to think about leaving legacy behind by teaching other what you know. So the learning or society process can advance. So therefore you let others take it to the next level.
Argument B: I strongly believe that helping yourself is not a selfish thing to do. If everyone took care of themselves and tried to make themselves better people then there would be no use of common good. You are the only person that knows what you feel, think and believe if you want change you would do change to yourself. | No |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is off topic or doesn't address the issue. | Argument A: I like to think both are true. <br/> 1. God created the first things (i don't think adam and ever were really human, maybe single celled. but man had a hard time believing that so we made the first creatures Man) <br/> 2. Those things God created Evolved to fit their surroundings. (there is proof of this, you can not deny this. i do not know if we came from monkeys or not.) <br/> I believe in God and Evolution.
Argument B: Just a note to the creationists. Please use the "Convinced me" link correctly. <br/> You're supposed to click this if the person's argument convinced you that Creationism is true. Some of you seem to be clicking anything and everything on the right hand side. <br/> This will not help you win the debate by the way. | Yes |
How would you rate the overall quality of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Giving up a child has to be one of the most responsible decisions a woman can make in her life. Have you any idea the responsibility and maturity it takes to make such an important decision? <br/> If a woman can not support a child(Either emotionally, physically, or financially) she should have right to choose to give up that child. | 2 |
Given an argument consisting of a claim and a reason, select the correct warrant that explains reasoning of this particular argument. There are only two options given and only one answer is correct. | Topic: Does Tenure Protect Bad Teachers or Good Schools?
Additional Info: Do job protections prevent bad faculty from being removed or do they provide for greater stability in a demanding, low-paid profession?
Claim: Tenure provides stability
Reason: Without tenure, there are too many little things that teachers could lose their jobs over.
Warrant 1: Teachers need job stability
Warrant 2: Teachers need job regulation | Teachers need job stability |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is unclear, or hard to follow. | Argument A: Americans spend billions on bottled water every year. Banning their sale would greatly hurt an already struggling economy. In addition to the actual sale of water bottles, the plastics that they are made out of, and the advertising on both the bottles and packaging are also big business. In addition to this, compostable waters bottle are also coming onto the market, these can be used instead of plastics to eliminate that detriment. Moreover, bottled water not only has a cleaner safety record than municipal water, but it easier to trace when a potential health risk does occur. <br/> (http://www.friendsjournal.org/bottled-water) (http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/bottled/)
Argument B: The water bottles are a safe source of water and is garentee safety | No |
An enthymeme is defined here as any missing argumentative discourse unit (ADU) that would complete the logic of a written argument. Given the following argument with such a gap, generate a new ADU that fills the gap indicated with "<mask>". | What is more, everyone who write must learn to love the language, to tame it. A man is like a servant. He/she must realize that he/she must give in to the language, to the writing. A written word has a power. <mask> As soon as a person writes down his/her ideas he is exposed to the public, he is responsible for everything he/she has written, and he/she is no longer free. A person gives his/her own writing to people who now judge the faith of the writing . | It can inform, agitate or ironies. |
An argument is emotionally deceptive if the emotions appealed to are used as deceptive tricks to win, derail, or end the discussion. Decide whether the argument is Emotionally Deceptive or Not Emotionally Deceptive | Topic: Firefox vs internet explorer:
Argument: Since when is Firefox an Apple fad? There have been more Windows than Mac Firefox downloads since day one.
If you are "original and free minded" then why do you use the browser with a 58.6% market share? How is using the browser everyone else does "original"?
It's not even worth rebutting the second paragraph of your argument, as it doesn't contain a single fact and really isn't even an argument either. | Is Emotionally Deceptive |
An argument is unclassified if it is inappropriate because of reasons not covered by Detrimental Orthography, Toxic Emotions, Missing Commitment and Missing Intelligibility. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument is Unclassified or Not Unclassified | Topic: How legally binding is a triple dog dare?:
Argument: there is NOTHING on the planet more binding than that of the Triple Dog Dare. Example:
Thong-Wearing Men Arrested at Wal-Mart
Thu Jul 29,10:59 AM ET
AP
SCOTTSBLUFF, Neb. - Two men who were arrested for walking through a Wal-Mart while wearing women's thong underwear blamed the stunt on a "triple-dog dare," authorities said.
The men, ages 35 and 36, bought two pair of underwear at the store Tuesday, went into a bathroom and came out wearing only the thongs and T-shirts, police said.
Witnesses said the men walked through the store and out to their car.
Police caught the men in the parking lot, and reviewed a surveillance tape before arresting them for public indecency and disorderly conduct.
When asked why they were wearing thong underwear, one of the men said a friend "triple-dog dared" them. They will not be prosecuted, authorities said. | Is Unclassified |
An argument is missing openness if it displays an unwillingness to consider arguments with opposing viewpoints and does not assess the arguments on their merits but simply rejects them out of hand. Decide whether the argument Lacks Openness or Does Not Lack Openness | Topic: Evolution vs creation:
Argument: Then according to your theory the fruit flies would have adapted and survived
So I'm not really sure how that argument works... | Lacks Openness |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is generally weak or vague. | Argument A: Porn is definitely wrong. Porn is like an addiction to some people which is unhealthy and can lead to guilt and lust. An addiction to porn gives an unhealthy image of real sex. Porn promotes the fact that sex is totally based on pleasure, but it is actually based on love and affection also. Porn inspired numerous crimes that sometimes abuse the rights and virginity of many people.
Argument B: What do you see in porn? <br/> -> sex <br/> What is sex for? <br/> -> baby making <br/> why should you watch others make baby? <br/> -> pleasure <br/> what causes pleasure? <br/> -> temptation <br/> what do you do to control temptation? <br/> -> then do it... <br/> conclusion: Porn is in a situation where there is temptation to increase the population of the next generation... wow. | Yes |
An argumentation should be seen as globally relevant if it contributes to the resolution of the given issue, i.e., if it provides arguments and/or other information that help to arrive at an ultimate conclusion regarding the discussed issue. You should be open to see an argumentation as relevant even if it does not your match your stance on the issue. Rather, the question is whether the provided arguments and information are worthy of being considered within the discussion of the issue. How would you rate the global relevance of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | P.E. should be optional in 8th grade. If students want to participate, then so be it. However, in 8th grade students have a lot going on. That time may be used more beneficially by studying. | 1 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is unclear, or hard to follow. | Argument A: School uniform is a great idea, just because it makes impossible to hold the race for the fashion among pupils. let it be, one pupil is richer than another. rich can begin to show off in front of those who are poorer. this action will create a negative atmosphere in the school and can start row between both pupils. As a rule, As a rule, it often occurs between the girls, although it is not rare between the boys. that's why school uniform liquidates all conflicts.
Argument B: i think school uniform is really good idea!Yes i agree that a lot of pupils don't like it, but however it have a lot of benefits. As previous people said children at first don't have to think about what to wear!because it is very big problem for teenagers. | Yes |
An argument is not intelligible if its meaning is unclear or irrelevant to the topic or if its reasoning is not understandable. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Intelligibility or Does Not Lack Intelligibility | Topic: Pro choice vs pro life:
Argument: it's the woman's choice. you cannot control her. (anyway how do u know she just wouldn't kill herself in attempt to kill her baby as well?) | Lacks Intelligibility |
An argumentation should be seen as globally relevant if it contributes to the resolution of the given issue, i.e., if it provides arguments and/or other information that help to arrive at an ultimate conclusion regarding the discussed issue. You should be open to see an argumentation as relevant even if it does not your match your stance on the issue. Rather, the question is whether the provided arguments and information are worthy of being considered within the discussion of the issue. How would you rate the global relevance of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | There is only one situation in which I believe abortion is okay. <br/> If a mother is incapable of giving birth to the child, and attempting it might kill her, I believe abortion is sad, but necessary. <br/> Otherwise, no one has the right to kill a child, born or unborn. | 2 |
An argument is missing commitment if the topic is not taken seriously or openness other’s arguments is absent. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Commitment or Does Not Lack Commitment | Topic: Evolution vs creation:
Argument: Ah yes, the classic peppered moth argument
I'm very familiar with it
I'm not sure how that proves the evolutionary process
Both moth colors have always been there
Its just a matter of which is it easier for their prey to see. That's not evolution-
That's a diet plan | Lacks Commitment |
An argument is detrimental orthography if it has serious spelling and/or grammatical errors, negatively affecting its readability. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument has Detrimental Orthography or Does Not Have Detrimental Orthography | Topic: India has the potential to lead the world:
Argument: i just know that i am an Indian and i don't want to show my country down and the person who thinks that only by debate they will solve all the problems is wrong.
because they also know that how is there country. | Has Detrimental Orthography |
Identify the reasons in the given argumentative text. | "Evidence? Considering how marraige predates any recordable history I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion." Sorry what? What is it you want evidence for? I'm merely pointing out that the world religions of today did not invent marriage. I like how you have completely ignored important details, including the main point I was making. Are you seriously telling me that you agree with those punishments, simply because it was a different time? You think people need death threats in order to not do serious crimes? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for executing murderers for example, but people that swear at their parents? People that don't scream loudly enough while being raped? Do you agree with this? Will you not concede that there are things in the bible that are wrong? Do you refute even the things said that have been proven to be false? Are you so commuted to the defence of a book that you have never read that you will try to harm other human beings because of things you have picked up from others? It's clear to me from your last post that you have never studied the bible. The promise of eternal happiness is apparently not enough to encourage you to read a book. I would suggest looking up Jesus's actions before you make assumptions about his life. What is it exactly that you want me to take into account? Be specific. Actually do some research and tell me what you want me to consider. If you don't, then I will continue to base my opinion on Jesus from my own research, and believe me, he does not paint a pretty picture. I have started to get the impression that you are an idiot. If your next response does not contain at least one intelligent sentence I won't bother replying. I am almost certain this will be the case, so enjoy living your ignorant life. | Reason 0: I'm merely pointing out that the world religions of today did not invent marriage. |
Given the following two arguments (Argument A and Argument B), determine which of the two is more convincing. | Argument A: Books r like cool! TV is not! Books are for nerds, Tv is for weirdos, I think Black ops is better! ROFL!
Argument B: I say books are better because It has you use your Imagination so the more you read the more your Imagination improves and It helps you to Improve reading, grammar, and it improves your writing skills!!! <br/> Also I want to say I HATE commercials!!! <br/> I hate Sponge bob!!! I would say PBS Kids, history channel, and the other Channels that help kids or adults get smarter I would say are good! | Argument B |
Argument conclusions are novel when they contain novel premise-related content and/or combination of the content in the premises in a way that goes beyond what is stated in the premise. Is the conclusion novel? | Premise: James Joyner: "While one can debate the degree to which the presidency is imperial, it’s simply untrue that the war in Libya is illegal in any shape, manner, or form. It’s being conducted under the auspices of both the UN Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty, which rather covers it internationally.
Conclusion: The intervention in Libya is legal and therefore legitimate | Yes |
Given the following comment-argument pair, decide which of these statements is true: The comment...
...explicitly attacks the argument.
...vaguely/implicitly attacks the argument.
...makes no use of the argument.
...vaguely/implicitly supports the argument.
...explicitly supports the argument. | Comment: The words Under God shouldn't be in the pledge because although we are one nation, not everybody wants to be under god and not everybody believes in god. This goes against the constitution and forces religion on the citizens.
Argument: Removing under god would promote religious tolerance | The comment vaguely/implicitly supports the argument. |
An argument is missing seriousness if it is either trolling others by suggesting (explicitly or implicitly) that the issue is not worthy of being discussed or does not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Seriousness or Does Not Lack Seriousness | Topic: Tv is better than books:
Argument: Television uses electricity and books such as harry potter are made of trees so it causes more damage to the environment. | Does Not Lack Seriousness |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is only opinion, or a rant. | Argument A: Is marriage really just about "love?" I think not. It's about societal norms. It's about legal rights. It's about families. It's about generations. It's about example. It's about commitment. It's about tax breaks. It's about parental roles. If it were just about "love" then I could marry my dog and two kids at the local middle-school could get married as well. It's not only about love.
Argument B: Gay people are making a terrible mistake. I think they are living the life right now with not having to commit to anything. If it was like that for normal marriage life would be a whole lot better. | Yes |
An argumentation should be seen as successful in creating credibility if it conveys arguments and other information in a way that makes the author worthy of credence, e.g., by indicating the honesty of the author or by revealing the author’s knowledge or expertise regarding the discussed issue. It should be seen as not successful if rather the opposite holds. Decide in dubio pro reo, i.e., if you have no doubt about the author’s credibility, then do not judge him or her to be not credible. How would you rate the success of the author’s argumentation in creating credibility on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | I think common good is better than personal pursuit because it's always better to assist other people. When people help each other out its more likely that everything comes out great. You get to become a role model by helping some one that needs your help. Yes personal pursuit is important when you are thinking of going to college. But than you got to think about leaving legacy behind by teaching other what you know. So the learning or society process can advance. So therefore you let others take it to the next level. | 2 |
Distinguish, whether the comment is Persuasive regarding the discussed topic or not (Not Persusasive). The key question to answer is: Does the author intend to convince us clearly about his/her attitude or opinion towards the topic? | Pray at home. School is a place of learning. | Persuasive |
An argumentation should be seen as globally sufficient if it adequately rebuts those counter-arguments to its conclusion that can be anticipated. Notice that it is not generally clear which and how many counter-arguments can be anticipated. There may be cases where it is infeasible to rebut all such objections. Please judge about global sufficiency according to whether all main objections of an argumentation that you see are rebutted. How would you rate the global sufficiency of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | That's really good idea. As i remember every morning i though what was better to wear? It was really problem, i spent quiet a lot of time. I asked my parents to buy new clothes for me, it was happened not rare. I know that not everyone thought as me, but it much better if the school has own uniform and everybody has to follow it. First it looks very good, smart. Secondly there is no envy that somebody have really nice skirt or jeans. Every pupil is the same and it would be easy to study, to not think about another things!! | 2 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it has language issues, bad grammar, uses humor, jokes or sarcasm. | Argument A: Bottled water should be only used for emergencies weather it be natural or human disaster. To help people in need and not pollute in the environment and harm habitats by dumping in the ocean or in landfills. Plastic doesn't decompose so in that case do not use on for emergencies.
Argument B: well with our water bottle consumption on the planet earth, we could cover all of mexico 3 Times, of could that would be a lot of "rich" in their mind Mexicans. | Yes |
An argument is emotionally deceptive if the emotions appealed to are used as deceptive tricks to win, derail, or end the discussion. Decide whether the argument is Emotionally Deceptive or Not Emotionally Deceptive | Topic: India has the potential to lead the world:
Argument: i strongly believe that India cannot lead . u people talk about the 7th , 3rd , 2nd rank of India in area defense and arable land respectively but here we r talking about the supreme power we cant rely on 2nd or 3rd. moreover the people r lazy they don't have the time 2 think about country's development they r happy at their home | Is Emotionally Deceptive |
Decide, whether the two sentences are similar or not, based on the given topic. Choose one of the following options: Different Topic/Can’t decide (DTORCD): Either one or both of the sentences belong to a topic different than the given one, or you can’t understand one or both sentences. If you choose this option, you need to very briefly explain, why you chose it (e.g.“The second sentence is not grammatical”, “The first sentence is from a different topic” etc.). No Similarity (NS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, but they don’t show any similarity, i.e. they speak aboutcompletely different aspects of the topic. Some Similarity (SS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, showing semantic similarity on a few aspects, but thecentral message is rather different, or one argument is way less specific than the other. High Similarity (HS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, and they speak about the same aspect, e.g. using different words. | Topic: Public surveillance
Sentence 1: For example, for syndromic surveillance, timeliness and sensitivity are critical, but high sensitivity increases false alarms, which can drain limited public health resources.
Sentence 2: Falsepositive reports can lead to unnecessary interventions, and falsely detected outbreaks can lead to costly investigations and undue concern in the population under surveillance. | Some Similarity (SS) |
An argument is missing commitment if the topic is not taken seriously or openness other’s arguments is absent. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Commitment or Does Not Lack Commitment | Topic: Do you believe that everyone has a right to have children?:
Argument: i think those kinda people that have children are just being selfish and are thinking about themselves..i mean think about the children?..i wouldn't wanna have a mom and see her go through mentally illness..or a dad who is in a wheelchair..think a bout it...so my answer is no..give the kids a home where they have a mom who can bake cookies for them and a dad who can go out back and play baseball with them.
...so no, i do not believe that "everyone" had the right to have children | Lacks Commitment |
Given a sentence and a topic, classify the sentence as a “supporting argument” or “opposing argument” if it includes a relevant reason for supporting or opposing the topic, or as a “non-argument” if it does not include a reason or is not relevant to the topic. | Sentence: However , when asked if the death penalty can help deter crime : 45 % say yes , while 43 % say no .
Topic: death penalty | supporting argument |
An argumentation should be seen as globally relevant if it contributes to the resolution of the given issue, i.e., if it provides arguments and/or other information that help to arrive at an ultimate conclusion regarding the discussed issue. You should be open to see an argumentation as relevant even if it does not your match your stance on the issue. Rather, the question is whether the provided arguments and information are worthy of being considered within the discussion of the issue. How would you rate the global relevance of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Here's a story for you from a few years back. A nine year old girl living in poverty in South America was raped by her step dad, and got pregnant with twins. Her family knew that she would die in childbirth, but she was not allowed to get an abortion because they were devout catholics. Both her and her two children died. That's three lives lost. One of those lives actually knew what life was. | 3 |
An argumentation should be seen as globally sufficient if it adequately rebuts those counter-arguments to its conclusion that can be anticipated. Notice that it is not generally clear which and how many counter-arguments can be anticipated. There may be cases where it is infeasible to rebut all such objections. Please judge about global sufficiency according to whether all main objections of an argumentation that you see are rebutted. How would you rate the global sufficiency of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | All we can say is a big IF because we are not yet 100% sure if this nation itself could lead the whole world. Who knows maybe in the future that India could fail to lead us. There are still other countries who are more progressive, more literated, more powerful than India, like the USA, United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, etc. This nation doesn't have yet enought potentials and ability to sustain the needs of the people. India is not yet that full of technologies like in the Americas. Well in fact technology is one of the most sophisticated and essential inventions ever created. | 1 |
Argument conclusions are novel when they contain novel premise-related content and/or combination of the content in the premises in a way that goes beyond what is stated in the premise. Given the conclusions below: Is conclusion A better than conclusion B in terms of novelty? | Premise: Companies will simply move to areas where the restrictions do not apply. Past experience has shown that government interference with the market does more harm than good.
Conclusion A: Sanctions typically harm the poorest in societies:
Conclusion B: Protecting civilians in Libya is key US value/interest | Yes |
How would you rate the overall quality of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | The growth in bottled water production has increased water extraction in areas near bottling plants, leading to water shortages that affect nearby consumers and farmers. In addition to the millions of gallons of water used in the plastic-making process, two gallons of water are wasted in the purification process for every gallon that goes into the bottles. | 2 |
An argument has toxic emotions if the emotions appealed to are deceptive or their intensities do not provide room for critical evaluation of the topic by the reader. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument is Toxic or Not Toxic. | Topic: Tv is better than books:
Argument: I learned English through TV.
Technically, I learned English through interaction with native speakers, but TV helped a lot more than books. | Not Toxic |
An argument is inappropriate if it contains severe orthographic errors or for reasons that are not Toxic Emotions, Missing Commitment or Missing Intelligibility. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument is Inappropriate Due to Other Reasons or Not Inappropriate Due to Other Reasons | Topic: Is it better to have a lousy father or to be fatherless:
Argument: I thinks its better if you be a fatherless than a lousy father because your lousy father would give you bad influence. Maybe you might follow your father as he is. But if your a fatherless is gonna be ok but not good either because you might not like being a fatherless. As long as you a lousy father or fatherless so they can encourage you to success in life and also help you correct your msitake that you had made. | Inappropriate Due to Other Reasons |
The argumentation can be thought of as a dialectical exchange between the role of the proponent (who is presenting and defending the central claim) and the role of the opponent (who is critically challenging the proponents claims). Given the following central claim and an argumentative discourse unit (ADU), determine the argumentative role, i.e. Proponent or Opponent of the ADU. | Central Claim: Living in a city where pollution is an excessive problem is not a good idea.
ADU: However, I believe it is everyone's responsibility to act in a way that protects our environment for our future generations. | pro |
The edges representing arguments are those that connect argumentative discourse units (ADUs). The scheme distinguishes between supporting and attacking relations. Supporting relations are normal support and support by example. Attacking relations are rebutting attacks (directed against another node, challenging the acceptability of the corresponding claim) and undercutting attacks (directed against another relation, challenging the argumentative inference from the source to the target of the relation). Finally, additional premises of relations with more than one premise are represented by additional source relations. Given the following two argumentative discourse units, determine the function of the segment, i.e. support, support by example, rebutting attack, undercutting attack, or additional premise. | ADU1: They can share what matters to them and feel validation that adolescents in the past may have been unable to find.
ADU2: Social media has improved the lives of teenagers. | support |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it has more details, information, facts, examples, reasons, better arguments, goes deeper or is more specific. | Argument A: Porn kills nobody. It's a profitable source of entertainment for some. <br/> Can somebody really tell me what's wrong with it without injecting their moral standards into the argument?
Argument B: hmm, yess there either all virgins or still live at home with there mothers and cant have porn LOL | Yes |
How would you rate the overall quality of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | christians are also fun to lawl at because they waste half of their sunday going to church. What a waste!!!! HAHAHA | 1 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is attacking, abusive or disrespectful. | Argument A: God is abstract. He doesn't often show himself. In general, the idea of a god or gods is pretty hard to think about. <br/> Apes are concrete. You can see them. Generally, the whole ape concept is easy to get your hands around. <br/> It's funny that the supposedly unsophisticated ancients would all choose to believe in an abstract concept rather than a concrete one. If you asked Adam where he came from, why would he say "God must have created me, I've seen Him around the garden" instead of "I was magically transformed from one of those apes over there"?
Argument B: Evolution is as likely as a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a 747 Airplane. | No |
An argumentation should be seen as successful in making an emotional appeal if it conveys arguments and other information in a way that creates emotions, which make the target audience more open to the author’s arguments. It should be seen as not successful if rather the opposite holds. Notice that you should not judge about the persuasive effect of the author’s argumentation, but you should decide whether the argumentation makes the target audience willing/unwilling to be persuaded by the author (or to agree/disagree with the author) in principle—or neither. How would you rate the success of the author’s argumentation in making an emotional appeal on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | In my opinion, I strongly agree that parents should use spanking as an option to discipline their children because the spankings are painful enough for children to learn to avoid doing the wrong things. | 2 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it sticks to the topic. | Argument A: That's your best argument - "Because they don't" ? <br/> I thought there was a reason for everything... <br/> I don't see the squirrel outside my window evolving. In fact, I'm pretty sure squirrels have looked and acted the same for thousands of years. <br/> How does an animal aquire a trait that he wasn't born with? Does he just wish for it really hard and it magically grows? <br/> And you proved my point - "species have certain characteristics and properties" <br/> I noticed you didn't mention that their characteristics randomly change <br/> And by the way, I'm just wondering because I'm a curious person... <br/> what insects are you talking about?
Argument B: Our world could be a giant hologram <br/> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html <br/> It is exceedingly likely that we live in a simulated universe | Yes |
Given a pair of argument clauses coming from the same document, predict if they are members of the same argument or not. | Clause 1: My underlying philosophic approach having been identified, some more "technical" points about the case may be made.
Clause 2: Two questions seem to me relevant in this respect | Not members of the same argument |
The edges representing arguments are those that connect argumentative discourse units (ADUs). The scheme distinguishes between supporting and attacking relations. Supporting relations are normal support and support by example. Attacking relations are rebutting attacks (directed against another node, challenging the acceptability of the corresponding claim) and undercutting attacks (directed against another relation, challenging the argumentative inference from the source to the target of the relation). Finally, additional premises of relations with more than one premise are represented by additional source relations. Given the following two argumentative discourse units, determine the function of the segment, i.e. support, support by example, rebutting attack, undercutting attack, or additional premise. | ADU1: but it has also seen many abuses.
ADU2: But China has survived as a country with the one child rule | rebutting attack |
Argument conclusions are valid if they follow from the premise, meaning a logical inference links the premise to the conclusion. Is the conclusion valid? | Premise: Instead of a straightforward finding of guilt and execution in a military court, Americans who suffered the loss of loved ones on 9/11 will have to suffer through a lengthy trial designed to show the world that Americans are fair to terrorists. [...] And they will have to suffer that trial within blocks of where two planes commandeered by fellow terrorists flew into and destroyed the Twin Trade Towers.
Conclusion: Terrorists will be tried in military courts, not in courts | No |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is generally weak or vague. | Argument A: depending on your beleifs <br/> because im christian i beleave it is <br/> but to someone eles whos not christian it may be completly ok
Argument B: jarman: <br/> porn is wrong because it sholud be in 4-D with surround sound and special effects :) it would make it much more pleasurable btw im a girl........ | Yes |
An argument is missing relevance if it does not discuss the issue, but derails the discussion implicitly towards a related issue or shifts completely towards a different issue. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Relevance or Does Not Lack Relevance | Topic: Business review: 1.0 stars
business name: salt cellar. city: scottsdale. categories: seafood, restaurants:
Argument: My husband and I went to the Salt Cellar for our anniversary. They served him a steak that was rancid. It kind of ruined the entire evening. In fact, not long after that we decided to become vegan. It was that bad of an experience for two people who loved seafood and steaks. But at the very least we are healthier for it. Needless to say, we will not be returning. | Lacks Relevance |
Argument conclusions are novel when they contain novel premise-related content and/or combination of the content in the premises in a way that goes beyond what is stated in the premise. Is the conclusion novel? | Premise: After Rwanda, the world said "never again." The Obama administration's action in Libya to protect massacres of civilians are consistent with this call and the values that under-pin it.
Conclusion: Libya is a beacon of hope for the world | Yes |
What kind of support relation, if any, exists from elementary unit X for a proposition Y of the same argument? Differentiate between REASON, EVIDENCE and NO SUPPORT RELATION. Support relations in this scheme are two prevalent ways in which propositions are supported in practical argumentation: REASON and EVIDENCE. The former can support either objective or subjective propositions, whereas the latter can only support objective propositions. That is, you cannot prove that a subjective proposition is true with a piece of evidence. REASON: For an elementary unit X to be a REASON for a proposition Y, it must provide a reason or a justification for Y. For example, “The only issue I have is that the volume starts to degrade a little bit after about six“and I find I have to buy a new pair every year or so.”(Y). EVIDENCE: For an elementary unit X to be EVIDENCE for a proposition Y, it must prove that Y is true. For example, “https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/[...]”(X) and “The product arrived damage[d],”(Y). | Argument: I like these. They fit well and are stable in my ears. The charge lasts for hours when I'm listening to music or podcasts. The discription says they should pick up the signal for approximately 30 feet, and they do, but only if there are absolutely no obstructions. If my phone is on my couch, and I walk 15 feet away into my partially open kitchen, the signal breaks up. Because of that, I keep these for times when my phone is being carried with me.
Elementary unit X: If my phone is on my couch, and I walk 15 feet away into my partially open kitchen, the signal breaks up.
Proposition Y: and they do, but only if there are absolutely no obstructions. | EVIDENCE |
The premises of an argument should be seen as sufficient if, together, they provide enough support to make it rational to draw the argument’s conclusion. If you identify more than one conclusion in the comment, try to adequately weight the sufficiency of the premises for each conclusion when judging about their “aggregate” sufficiency—unless there are particular premises or conclusions that dominate your view of the author’s argumentation. Notice that you may see premises as sufficient even though you do not personally accept all of them, i.e., sufficiency does not presuppose acceptability. How would you rate the sufficiency of the premises of the author’s argument on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Unfortunately, most of what sabrejimmy says is a load of crap. <br/> This is what makes these kinds of debates pointless. You have some idiot creationists, who don't understand anything about science. <br/> sabrejimmy hasn't attempted to learn anything from this debate. He continues to ask ridiculous questions. <br/> Personally, I think I will have to ignore his future posts. Intelligent debate is satisfying, but this isn't. | 1 |
An argumentation should be seen as globally acceptable if everyone from the expected target audience would accept both the consideration of the stated arguments within the discussion of the given issue and the way they are stated. Notice that you may see an argumentation as globally acceptable even though the stated arguments do not persuade you of the author’s stance. How would you rate the global acceptability of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | I believe personal pursuit its better, because its your job to decide what you want to do with your life. Your not always going to have someone by your side telling you whats right or wrong. Its all on you of reaching their goals. Its also a good thing to help other reach their succeed their goals. | 1 |
Extract the central claim from the following argumentative text. | Helicopter parents can cause children to grow up to be overly dependent. While watchful parents keep their children out of harms way, they also make it difficult for their child to become independent and make their own decisions. Children should be able to make some small decisions for themselves at a young age; this way, they can continue to make bigger decisions as they grow into teens and young adults. HELICOPTER PARENTS ARE BAD FOR THEIR CHILDREN. | Helicopter parents are bad for their children. |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it has no reasoning or less reasoning. | Argument A: there is no god. Science has proven it. It was just an excuse made up so people from simplier times didnt have to think to hard on those big questions.
Argument B: It is ignorant and idiotic to think that god exist. Any other argument is completely invalid. | Yes |
Does the given clause belong to an argument? | The sale in hypermarkets and supermarkets of videos inciting pornographic or obscene behaviour is even more dangerous than the sale of books, as it is more difficult to ensure that the public are protected | No |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is generally weak or vague. | Argument A: books is well better than tv because it is cheaper to buy a book <br/> if you wanted to buy a tv it would be really dear and you have to buy a tv licence <br/> books can help you learn <br/> a lot of the stuff on tv is either violent or not right for kids <br/> so books are well better
Argument B: Television is almost the exact same thing as books, the only difference is, you actually have to move your eyes for books | Yes |
Score the helpfulness of the following review on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest). | I purchased these headphones because i travel for work and fly almost every week. I prefer in ear headphones and the description said they are noise Isolating. These are no better than the stock Apple I phone ear buds. They have decent sound but they do not block or isolate any noise at all. Changing from 2 to 4 stars. Symphonized sent me a replacement pair, The NRG 2.0 earphones and they worked amazing when i used them while flying. Sound was clear, Bass was good for in ear headphones. They really helped block/isolate the noise of the aircraft. I wore them on a trip from Minneapolis to Tokyo, They were so comfortable at times i forgot i had them in my ears, Like when i got up to use the bathroom:) Since then i have used them on 15 or so flights and i love them, For the price and quality you cannot go wrong with these. | 1 |
Given as input an argumentative claim, potentially along with context information on the debate, rewrite the claim such that it improves in terms of text quality and/or argument quality, and preserves the meaning as far as possible. | The case referred to in the link \(the article focuses on El Salvador\), neither miscarriages nor stillbirths as such are criminal. The main example in the article is of a woman convicted of asphyxiating her baby post-birth. Her claim that the baby was born dead was disputed by the prosecution. | In the case referred to in the link \(the article focuses on El Salvador\), neither miscarriages nor stillbirths as such are criminal. The main example in the article is of a woman convicted of asphyxiating her baby post-birth. Her claim that the baby was born dead was disputed by the prosecution. |
The style of an argumentation should be seen as appropriate if the used language supports the creation of credibility and emotions as well as if it is proportional to the discussed issue. The choice of words and the grammatical complexity should, in your view, appear suitable for the discussed issue within the given setting (online debate forum on a given issue), matching with how credibility and emotions are created via the content of the argumentation. How would you rate the appropriateness of the style of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | I found more peace in my belief and will continue to seek the Lord until the day I die. | 2 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it is well thought out, has smart remarks or is more complex. | Argument A: It was Raffles who signed the treaty with the Sultan Hussein,not Farquhar. Farquhar was just Raffles subordinate.
Argument B: No.If you research about FarQuhar.He didn't do anything to help Singapore while Raffles was away,instead of doing anything he just made a big mess and allowed things like vice,crimes and gambling dens carry on. | No |
Label each elementary argumentative unit as REFERENCE or as one of the proposition types FACT, TESTIMONY, POLICY, and VALUE. FACT (Proposition of Non-Experiential Fact) is an objective proposition, meaning it does not leave any room for subjective interpretations or judgements. For example, “and battery life is about 8-10 hours.”. TESTIMONY (Proposition of Experiential Fact) is also an objective proposition. However, it differs from FACT in that it is experiential, i.e., it describes a personal state or experience. For example, “I own Sennheisers, Bose, Ludacris Souls, Beats, etc.”. POLICY (Proposition of Policy) is a subjective proposition that insists on a specific course of action. For example, “They need to take this product off the market until the issue is resolved.”. VALUE (Proposition of Value) is a subjective proposition that is not POLICY. It is a personal opinion or expression of feeling. For example, “They just weren’t appealing to me”. REFERENCE (Reference to a Resource) is the only non-proposition elementary unit that refers to a resource containing objective evidence. In product reviews, REFERENCE is usually a URL to another product page, image or video. Also, REFERENCE cannot be supported by other elementary units. For example, “https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/[...]”. | They work like a charm and keep their charge for a long time.
The ear pieces are very comfortable
and the sound is excellent.
The pictures do not do them justice.
They look even more expensive in person. | VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE
VALUE |
Is the following argument clause a premise? | The Court reiterates that decisions taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention - as is the case in this instance with the district authority and the regional government (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above) - must be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction | No |
The edges representing arguments are those that connect argumentative discourse units (ADUs). The scheme distinguishes between supporting and attacking relations. Supporting relations are normal support and support by example. Attacking relations are rebutting attacks (directed against another node, challenging the acceptability of the corresponding claim) and undercutting attacks (directed against another relation, challenging the argumentative inference from the source to the target of the relation). Finally, additional premises of relations with more than one premise are represented by additional source relations. Given the following two argumentative discourse units, determine the function of the segment, i.e. support, support by example, rebutting attack, undercutting attack, or additional premise. | ADU1: Wind energy, along with other types of energy such as solar power, is self-renewing, clean, and relatively safe for both people and the surrounding ecosystems.
ADU2: Wind energy is a viable form of alternative energy production that should be encouraged in use. | support |
The style of an argumentation should be seen as clear if it uses gramatically correct and widely unambiguous language as well as if it avoids unnecessary complexity and deviation from the discussed issue. The used language should make it easy for you to understand without doubts what the author argues for and how. How would you rate the clarity of the style of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Firefox is more respectful of W3C internet standards while soft sucks by trying to force us to use their own standards to keep their monopoly. | 2 |
Given an argumentative claim, select the type required type of quality improvement from the defined set (Typo/grammar correction, Clarification, Link correction/addition) that should be improved when revising the claim. | A student's expertise is not always required for the subject being studied. For example, a Black student with expertise in physics would not likely be asked about this in a Black American literature course. Thus, it does not diminish his expertise. | Typo or grammar correction |
Decide, whether the two sentences are similar or not, based on the given topic. Choose one of the following options: Different Topic/Can’t decide (DTORCD): Either one or both of the sentences belong to a topic different than the given one, or you can’t understand one or both sentences. If you choose this option, you need to very briefly explain, why you chose it (e.g.“The second sentence is not grammatical”, “The first sentence is from a different topic” etc.). No Similarity (NS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, but they don’t show any similarity, i.e. they speak aboutcompletely different aspects of the topic. Some Similarity (SS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, showing semantic similarity on a few aspects, but thecentral message is rather different, or one argument is way less specific than the other. High Similarity (HS): The two arguments belong to the same topic, and they speak about the same aspect, e.g. using different words. | Topic: Public surveillance
Sentence 1: This requires coordination but is more efficient and less costly, because it allows building on existing resources and capacity.
Sentence 2: This interoperability creates the potential to eliminate data-reentry into case management applications, which can improve efficiency while reducing resource requirements and data-entry errors. | Different Topic/Can’t decide (DTORCD) |
An enthymeme is defined here as any missing argumentative discourse unit (ADU) that would complete the logic of a written argument. Is there a problematic enthymematic gap at the position marked with "<mask>" in the following argument? | Nowadays, things have changed and religion plays a secondary role for some people. Each one can believe in whatever he considers "rigne", if this does not insult the dignity of the others. In the 21st century, that technology has circled our lives there is another thing that Marx could call as "opium". This thing is called television. <mask> TV is the way to communicate with other people and learn about everything in the nick of time. We can learn the news, we can learn what is happening in other European countries or even in the world only by pushing a button. Television has replaced people's anxiety to feel aware of what is happening our them with safety and security that everything comes into their houses without difficulties . | Yes |
An argumentation should be seen as successful in making an emotional appeal if it conveys arguments and other information in a way that creates emotions, which make the target audience more open to the author’s arguments. It should be seen as not successful if rather the opposite holds. Notice that you should not judge about the persuasive effect of the author’s argumentation, but you should decide whether the argumentation makes the target audience willing/unwilling to be persuaded by the author (or to agree/disagree with the author) in principle—or neither. How would you rate the success of the author’s argumentation in making an emotional appeal on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | while yes phys. ed. classes should still be in high schools they shouldnt be mandatory(especially not all 4 years of HS). maybe just having PE be an optional class and having one year be a mandatory thing instead of a continuous PE class. in lower grades, yes it should be mandatory because little kids are more likely to gain and lose weight in weird patterns. That Is All. | 2 |
An argument is emotionally deceptive if the emotions appealed to are used as deceptive tricks to win, derail, or end the discussion. Decide whether the argument is Emotionally Deceptive or Not Emotionally Deceptive | Topic: Human growth and development should parents use spanking as an option to discipline:
Argument: A parent shouldn't use spanking as an option to discipline a child because they might grow up traumatized and they might feel unloved since they would get spanked a lot, that will cause a low self of esteem. Also spanking shouldn't be an option because at that moment the parent would be full with anger and they wouldn't be thinking logically. | Is Not Emotionally Deceptive |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is generally weak or vague. | Argument A: I'm sad to see the way this turned out. With not so little respect and so much spamming. I choose atheism over a Christianity because their is not enough evidence to soothe my curiosity. Christianity raises too many questions that it never answers.
Argument B: Why do you think we can't stand that question? <br/> ALso you forgot all the other choices. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Judaism one and on | No |
An argument is missing seriousness if it is either trolling others by suggesting (explicitly or implicitly) that the issue is not worthy of being discussed or does not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Seriousness or Does Not Lack Seriousness | Topic: Are the words of a state trooper credible in the court of law?:
Argument: I think it should be deemed as hear say and thrown out immediately. It is inadmissible evidence. They cannot accept this as a confession because first, his low IQ made him easily susceptible to coercion. He was coerced into confessing. Second, there is no proof he spoke the words he is said to have uttered and the wording and thought process are to complex for this defendant. He is to incompetent to be able to think of problems in logical progressions. | Lacks Seriousness |
How would you rate the overall quality of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | in the past, children could walk around as they pleased, to and from the candy store, to and from school. now there are child pornographors, sexual predators online. porn has opened the doors to new crimes. | 2 |
The premises of an argument should be seen as sufficient if, together, they provide enough support to make it rational to draw the argument’s conclusion. If you identify more than one conclusion in the comment, try to adequately weight the sufficiency of the premises for each conclusion when judging about their “aggregate” sufficiency—unless there are particular premises or conclusions that dominate your view of the author’s argumentation. Notice that you may see premises as sufficient even though you do not personally accept all of them, i.e., sufficiency does not presuppose acceptability. How would you rate the sufficiency of the premises of the author’s argument on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | This is just wrong we should not insult who we believe in we do not need to know what you people think | 1 |
Argument strength refers to the strength of the argument an essay makes for its thesis. An essay with a high argument strength score presents a strong argument for its thesis and would convince most readers. Score the argument strength of the given argumentative essay using the following scoring range:
1.0 (essay does not make an argument or it is often unclear what the argument is)
1.5
2.0 (essay makes a weak argument for its thesis or sometimes even argues against it)
2.5
3.0 (essay makes a decent argument for its thesis and could convince some readers)
3.5
4.0 (essay makes a strong argument for its thesis and would convince most readers) | As we all know prison is considered or thought of as a place where holigins and maniac's belong, but as human being's of all characters and behaviour some of us are bond to break the law .
Prison's were built in countries all over to keep anabiding law citizens away from the abiding society. These people are isolated from society so they can think and get their minds together and abide the law. But in recent years this has never been the case because one out of 10 inmales who are released from prison always come back, so meaning that somehow our prison system is failing us .
We always hear stories about how prisoners still indulge in criminal activities even in prison, We hear about how they kill and rape each other in prison, meaning that how can somebody rehabilitate in a society where he is still doing criminal activities. Prisoners in the United States were said to have been mentally ill due to the fact that they were locked up in a dark cell for 22 days with lack of food and water, (Chicago Times "1994")
The prison system is outdated and society should not punish it's criminals but rehabilitate them because our prison system has failed to rehabilitate prisoners in order to get them back to society and abide the law. Rehabilitation is one of the brightest ideas that the government thought about. Criminals should be treated as humans and citizens and be shown that they belong in our society like any other citizen. If somebody is isolated from other people he/she feels that they don't belong and they are always going to do the same activities they have been doing if they are not shown or given any attention .
Rehabilitation also helps prisoners learn to survive in society by that I mean that they are taught different skills like for eg (how to read and write, art crafting, sewing, shoe repairing, etc.) Those skills they develope during rehabilitation will gurantee them some income once they are out in the real world. Our Society also should assist ex prisoners in getting job's because once your an ex-prisoner nobody will ever give you a job, and that's the other thing that we have a high rate of ex-prisoners going back to prison after a month's release .
Society should not punish it's criminals but rehabilitate them, in order for humans to live together in a peaceful and law abiding society .
| 3.0 |
An argument is missing openness if it displays an unwillingness to consider arguments with opposing viewpoints and does not assess the arguments on their merits but simply rejects them out of hand. Decide whether the argument Lacks Openness or Does Not Lack Openness | Topic: What is the law for the poor contnry >i,e, india?:
Argument: i knw its a cliche' but NO OFFENSE TO U!!!.....
u 'think' that india is poor,,,but its not,,,,,,,,,its quite rich in history, evrything~........... if u think its poor it stays poor,,,,,,,,but if u can write better english,more ppl get jobs,,and lo-behold! india Bcomes rich! | Lacks Openness |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it provides no facts, not enough support, not credible evidence or no clear explanation. | Argument A: School uniforms are a BAD idea. Kids won't be able to show their color.
Argument B: Bad. I'm too lazy to explain why so take my word for it. I had to wear one for 4 years at school. | Yes |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it is more balanced, objective, discusses several points of view, well-rounded or addresses flaws in opposing views. | Argument A: If a women is raped is a good argument. However why would you punish an innocent baby with the death penalty for some other man's crime. If the women does not want the child she could give it up for adoption. I just dont understand why you would kill the baby, the emotional trauma would happen without the baby as well.
Argument B: for everyone who is talking about RAPE in this subject let me ask you one thing!!!! if you got in a huge fight with someone and ended up breaking your hand or arm... would you cut it off just because it would REMIND you of that expirience??? <br/> if your actualy SANE you would say no and if you say yes you need to see a Physiatrist!!!! | No |
Argument conclusions are valid if they follow from the premise, meaning a logical inference links the premise to the conclusion. Is the conclusion valid? | Premise: If the U.S. withdraws from the U.N, it will promote a policy of isolationism, which will only cause a severe decrease in international trade. Other nations will be hesitant to share resources with a 'lone' nation, a nation we cannot afford to be at this time.
Conclusion: Withdrawing from the U.N. will increase isolationism | Yes |
An argumentation should be seen as effective if it achieves to persuade you of the author’s stance on the discussed issue or—in case you already agreed with the stance before—if it corroborates your agreement with the stance. Besides the actual arguments, also take into consideration the credibility and the emotional force of the argumentation. Decide in dubio pro reo, i.e., if you have no doubt about the correctness of the author’s arguments, then do not judge him or her to be not effective—unless you explicitly think that the arguments do not support the author’s stance. How would you rate the effectiveness of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | No porn is not wrong. As an abstract noun, it cannot be wrong. | 1 |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it has better credibility, reliability or confidence. | Argument A: The right to abortion should not be abused, <br/> however I do believe that the choice should be provided. <br/> NOBODY should make decisions of what an individual should do with her body.
Argument B: Pro-Life means the problem of overpopulation is being directly supplied, as well as many more crack-addicted/poverty ridden babies are born. Pro-Choice ftw | Yes |
An argument is missing relevance if it does not discuss the issue, but derails the discussion implicitly towards a related issue or shifts completely towards a different issue. Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument Lacks Relevance or Does Not Lack Relevance | Topic: Firefox vs internet explorer:
Argument: Chorme beats all its the fastest and the safest plus its also open source like firefox | Lacks Relevance |
Distinguish, whether the comment is Persuasive regarding the discussed topic or not (Not Persusasive). The key question to answer is: Does the author intend to convince us clearly about his/her attitude or opinion towards the topic? | In a perfect world, everyone would send their kids to a public school and make it the best system possible. The question to ask will one person/parent make a difference? What parent out there who really cares for their child wants to take that chance? I started out an idealist who thought by my community involvement I could make a better world for my kids The social acceptance of greed in the 1980's and the immediate gratification needs of our society today make us ask if we will still have a world tomorrow - much less a better world tomorrow. Now that I have grandchildren I am glad my kids send their kids to private schools. | Persuasive |
An argumentation should be seen as globally acceptable if everyone from the expected target audience would accept both the consideration of the stated arguments within the discussion of the given issue and the way they are stated. Notice that you may see an argumentation as globally acceptable even though the stated arguments do not persuade you of the author’s stance. How would you rate the global acceptability of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Another reason argued against school uniforms is that they deprive the children of their individuality. The stress on a uniform dress code in school opposes the spirit of unity in diversity and its celebration. It is even claimed to restrict socialization, a vital aspect of human nature. | 3 |
Given the following two arguments (Argument A and Argument B), determine which of the two is more convincing. | Argument A: think about it, it's impossible for evolution to NOT happen. the weak die, the strong continue to breed. this strengthens the species. argument over. <br/> however, creationism and evolution are not exclusionary. i don't believe in a god simply because of the unbelievably minute chance of a god (or gods) existing
Argument B: How can that be? How were you brought up? Did you go to church? Sunday school? Pray before meals? Pray at school? Pray at night? <br/> I remember at the age of 7 when I started questioning the Lord's Prayer in school. And God. It didn't make sense. So I stopped assuming God was real, and stopped saying the Lord's Prayer (thankfully my public school system stopped that practice). <br/> So please tell me where I have been brainwashed. | Argument A |
Identify the reasons in the given argumentative text. | you may not know it but a babies heart starts beatin 18 days after conception and you usually dont know until after then that your pregnant so therefore you are killing a child when you get an abortion unless the outcome is going to be you and the child dying then there is no point whatsoever in killing your child. i think that if you get pregnent and dont want to keep the child the right thing to do would be to give it to a baren couple whom long for children. It's a blastula, then embryo, then foetus. It is never a child, for child refers to the immature birthed. A baby refers to the recently birthed. If a mother wants to get pregnant and then abort it is her right to do so. It is none of your business to tell her what she may do with her body, especially when it is such an intimate and emotional decision. | Reason 0: If a mother wants to get pregnant and then abort it is her right to do so.
Reason 1: A baby refers to the recently birthed
Reason 2: It's a blastula, then embryo, then foetus. It is never a child, for child refers to the immature birthed. |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument B is less convincing because it is off topic or doesn't address the issue. | Argument A: Well "The Champ" It is not the Woman's body we are talking about, it is a new life. And if you are going to be irresponsible dont let a new life die for it!
Argument B: What i dont undertsand is how people rationalize taking life it just doesnt make any sense... idc the situation in america how is killing leagal? | Yes |
Does the given clause belong to an argument? | In the present case, the applicant did not bring private
prosecution proceedings against the police officers concerned for
insult, or, assuming that the alleged acts had to be prosecuted ex
officio, lay any criminal charges against the police officers
requesting their prosecution | Yes |
The style of an argumentation should be seen as clear if it uses gramatically correct and widely unambiguous language as well as if it avoids unnecessary complexity and deviation from the discussed issue. The used language should make it easy for you to understand without doubts what the author argues for and how. How would you rate the clarity of the style of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | religious people are always using the same argument: you cant prove he doesn't exist!!!!you CANNOT disprove a negative. meaning, you cant prove something is not there,which already is not there. | 1 |
Given a pair of argument clauses coming from the same document, predict if they are members of the same argument or not. | Clause 1: t is accordingly necessary to reserve it, due regard being had to the possibility of agreements being reached between the respondent State and the applicants.
Clause 2: The applicants made no claims in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic criminal proceedings. | Not members of the same argument |
Label each elementary argumentative unit as REFERENCE or as one of the proposition types FACT, TESTIMONY, POLICY, and VALUE. FACT (Proposition of Non-Experiential Fact) is an objective proposition, meaning it does not leave any room for subjective interpretations or judgements. For example, “and battery life is about 8-10 hours.”. TESTIMONY (Proposition of Experiential Fact) is also an objective proposition. However, it differs from FACT in that it is experiential, i.e., it describes a personal state or experience. For example, “I own Sennheisers, Bose, Ludacris Souls, Beats, etc.”. POLICY (Proposition of Policy) is a subjective proposition that insists on a specific course of action. For example, “They need to take this product off the market until the issue is resolved.”. VALUE (Proposition of Value) is a subjective proposition that is not POLICY. It is a personal opinion or expression of feeling. For example, “They just weren’t appealing to me”. REFERENCE (Reference to a Resource) is the only non-proposition elementary unit that refers to a resource containing objective evidence. In product reviews, REFERENCE is usually a URL to another product page, image or video. Also, REFERENCE cannot be supported by other elementary units. For example, “https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/[...]”. | Ordered a NEW product -
Received a USED product.
Having to leave the country this week, and my other BOSE headset gone out, I must use THIS product, which was used.
Extremely disappointed. | TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY
VALUE
VALUE |
An argument is emotionally deceptive if the emotions appealed to are used as deceptive tricks to win, derail, or end the discussion. Decide whether the argument is Emotionally Deceptive or Not Emotionally Deceptive | Topic: William farquhar ought to be honoured as the rightful founder of singapore:
Argument: William Farquhar stayed in Singapore longer than Raffles, so Farquhar had more time to get to know the people more, to earn the trust of the people, to find out the problems that the people were facing and to solve those problems | Is Not Emotionally Deceptive |
Argument conclusions are novel when they contain novel premise-related content and/or combination of the content in the premises in a way that goes beyond what is stated in the premise. Is the conclusion novel? | Premise: In a few states there are actually large majorities against: by as much as 2: 1 in Austria, France and Germany. The EU should not force these strongly opposed states to accept Turkey's admission into the EU.
Conclusion: There are strong majorities against Turkish EU membership. | No |
Subsets and Splits