instruction
stringclasses 84
values | input
stringlengths 0
21.5k
| output
stringlengths 0
8.95k
|
|---|---|---|
An argument has unclear meaning if its content is vague, ambiguous, or implicit, such that it remains unclear what is being said about the issue (it could also be an unrelated issue). Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument has Unclear Meaning or Does Not Have Unclear Meaning | Topic: The world was more peaceful with saddam in power than without him. stance: the world was safer with saddam in power.:
Argument: If Iraq has taught us anything at all, it is that brutal, repressive dictators have their place in the world. If this administration had any brains at all, they would have had a Delta squad hunkered down right under the gallows with a stepstool, ready to spirit Saddam away to his rightful place at the capital. It takes a mean bastard to run a 160,000 square-mile lunatic asylum. | Has Unclear Meaning |
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: Should prisons be built by the government of private companies?:
Argument: What difference would there be? Violent career criminals will continue to be released back into society to make room for nonviolent first-time offenders like deadbeat dads (how do you pay child support in prison?), drunk drivers with multiple misdemeanor convictions (but no accidents), recreational marijuana users caught with a single joint in their possession, scam artists who prey on the wealthy, etc. Whoever builds them, prisons should be for the long-term incarceration of major drug dealers, robbers, rapists, and murderers in order to protect society from these violent sociopaths. | Is 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 off topic or doesn't address the issue. | Argument A: although i voted for evolution... creation is easier to accept due to the fact that someone somewhere had to change aspects of the universe in order for us to exist.
Argument B: Oops, I meant to say creationist version of evolution. My apologies. | Yes |
Extract the central claim from the following argumentative text. | Hunting is good for the environment because overpopulated species can be thinned out. Getting rid of an overpopulation enables the smaller animals in the food chain to grow. It also allows for nature to take back the woods and grasslands, which will also enable other wildlife to grow. Some people may object to hunting on the basis of humane treatment of animals. Animals do not necessarily feel pain as we do, and if there are not enough resources to sustain an overpopulation, then a quick bullet or arrow is better than slow starvation. | Hunting is good for the environment |
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)? | 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? | 2 |
A small set of talking points, termed key points can be used to form a concise summary from a large collection of arguments on a given topic. Generate multiple key points on the given topic and provide the stance of each key point towards the topic. | Topic: We should prohibit flag burning | flag burning is an effective tool of expression/protest/critique (con)
flag burning is justified due to freedom of expression (con)
flag burning is an inflammatory act (pro)
Flags are important symbols that should be respected (pro) |
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: ’” . . . ” Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically - defined crimes and even then , permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances .
Topic: death penalty | supporting argument |
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: Christianity or atheism:
Argument: I love Jesus, so I am on this side . | Not Inappropriate Due to Other Reasons |
Is the following argument clause an argument conclusion? | As regards the substance of the case, the applicants submit that
there has been a violation of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention in
respect of the shooting of the three deceased persons | Yes |
Argument conclusions are valid if they follow from the premise, meaning a logical inference links the premise to the conclusion. Given the conclusions below: Is conclusion A better than conclusion B in terms of validity? | Premise: Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America's vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.
Conclusion A: Offshore oil drilling helps stabilize US economy
Conclusion B: Offshore drilling is very valuable to the US economy | They are equally valid |
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 only that private investment will really speed up the spread of wind energy.
ADU2: Government can pass regulations to make wind energy more inviting to investors and businesses, | undercutting attack |
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: Human growth and development should parents use spanking as an option to discipline:
Argument: Not everything begins with violence, parents shouldn't hit kids for discipline, only if its necessary . | Does Not Lack Intelligibility |
Given the following two argumentative discourse units (ADUs), determine whether the two ADUs are connected by any argumentative relation (e.g. support or attack). | ADU1: Most people can tell the difference between reality and movies,
ADU2: I think that, to some extent, romantic movies can leave an impression on viewers about what they think their real life relationships should be. | Yes |
Segment the following review into its elementary argumentative units. Elementary argumentative units are the fundamental components of an argument. | Wasted money. Wasted time. Took forever to arrive and does not work as advertised. When a call comes through it rattles with the vibration alert. The battery life is very short. When using this device while on a call the other person cannot hear me well if at all, so I have to switch to my handset, can't do that while driving. The volume controls on the side do not work. I would not purchase this again. My dog chewed up my lg set so this was to replace it. Should have fed the dog the money used to purchase these at least she would have had a full tummy! | Wasted money.
Wasted time.
Took forever to arrive and does not work as advertised.
When a call comes through it rattles with the vibration alert.
The battery life is very short.
When using this device while on a call the other person cannot hear me well if at all,
so I have to switch to my handset, can't do that while driving.
The volume controls on the side do not work.
I would not purchase this again.
My dog chewed up my lg set
so this was to replace it.
Should have fed the dog the money used to purchase these
at least she would have had a full tummy! |
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)? | i would turn in my wife because its wrong to kill someone. it could have been an accident but it was still wrong and besides the police are going to find out who killed that person but i don't want her to leave me for a long period of time so i would tell but then again i wouldn't. | 1 |
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: Electric cars
Sentence 1: Improvements in electric infrastructure mean that it is easier to recharge the cells used in electric cars.
Sentence 2: With literally hundreds of moving parts, a petro-fired automobile requires considerably more maintenance than an electric car. | No Similarity (NS) |
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/[...]”. | This earpiece works well, very easy to set up.
The only reason I give 3 stars is that it is too big for my ear.
I can use it no problem, but feel that if it were smaller, I could get a better fit. | VALUE
VALUE
VALUE |
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 clear, crisp, to the point or well written. | Argument A: Everybody has goals and things that they want to accomplish in life. However, a person that helps the community and puts other people in front of themselves will most surely live a better life. If you really think about it, advancing the common good is basically a win-win situation. You get the support of other people, and you can also get recognition for yourself as a reward for your help.
Argument B: i believe they are diffenrent ways of feeling happy and proud of what you do, i feel happy helping others that doesnt means i help every person in front of me, i try to do what i think is best and good to make somebody happy. | 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/[...]”. | One ear breaks after 2 days.
Happened to me twice already.
DO NOT BUY | TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY
POLICY |
Given two arguments on a topic, decide whether they are on the same side or not. | Argument 1: no woman "wants" an abortion; it is only the least bad alternative
Argument 2: the hippocratic oath forbids doctors from performing abortions hippocratic oath, attributed to the school of hippocrates, the “father of medicine,” circa 400 b.c. - "i will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner i will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."[30] | Same side |
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: America, the backwards country.?:
Argument: the liberal demacrates have made it ok to do all these things. If, in some maraculus way, drugs or alchahal became band, they would IMMIDIATELY demand that the law is "unconstitutional" i heard that they took out the picture of George washington praying out of a school because they said that it was "unconstitutional". HES OUR FOUNDING FATHER! And they just took his picture out because they thought it was suggeting the christian values in the school. But they teach the kids about hinduism and judisum, but when it comes to christianity, ITS ILLEAGAL to teach the kids about that. And INstead of trying to keep kids out of sex, THEY ARE HANDING OUT CONDOMS, and trying to "encourge" the mto safe. I agree, its twisted. | Has Detrimental Orthography |
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: Nanotechnology
Sentence 1: Numerous novel nanotechnology applications with more radical capabilities and implications are foreseen across the economy, including in aerospace, construction, electronics, environment, medicine, and security.
Sentence 2: Nanotechnology holds tremendous potential -- for improvements in health care, the production of clean water and energy, and for continued advances in our IT infrastructure. | Some Similarity (SS) |
Score the helpfulness of the following review on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest). | It's a little too big for my ears. If it was a little smaller to fit my hear, I would be very happy. | 0 |
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: Raffles founded Singapore and Farquhar was just a subordinate for Raffles. So it was normal that Raffles gave he duty of turning Singapore into a successful city and left the city to Farquhar to handle.
Argument B: Farquhar has a boss!(raffles) he has to follow raffles and not go about doing anything else if then why cant farquhar help singapore after he was fired? I say again you do need to be in a certain position to be a founder as time, money, effort is all invested. You must know people who would help you. | No |
An argument should be seen as cogent if it has individually acceptable premises that are relevant to the argument’s conclusion and that are sufficient to draw the conclusion. Try to adequately weight your judgments about local acceptability, local relevance, and local sufficiency when judging about cogency—unless there is a particular dimension among these that dominates your view of an argument. Accordingly, if you identify more than one argument, try to adequately weight the cogency of each argument when judging about their “aggregate” cogency—unless there is a particular argument that dominates your view of the author’s argumentation. How would you rate the cogency of the author’s argument on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | 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. | 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 has no reasoning or less reasoning. | Argument A: An action is ethical if society as a whole would benefit if we all did it. Fair enough? <br/> If everyone had a gay marriage, then society as a whole would NOT benefit. In fact, we would all become extinct, because without one man and one woman there would be no reproduction and continuation of our species. <br/> Therefore, gay marriage can't be ethical. <br/> You can't refute my statement by saying, "There will always be straight people" because that's like saying killing someone is right because there will always be those who won't kill.
Argument B: Why are you arguing about a U.S. decision when you are in Canada? | No |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it provokes thought. | Argument A: It's not yours, nor anyone else's but the person involved's decision as to whether or not they want an abortion. This is such an overblown issue that people on both sides are being killed over it--it's ridiculous, and this needs to be left alone.
Argument B: So then you're saying the if the woman were to get an abortion right after than t would be fine? | No |
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 clear, crisp, to the point or well written. | Argument A: A personal pursuit is a better endeavor because you are fulfilling something within yourself. It is important to help others but there is a time to do so. Achieving a personal goal is a journey to fulfillment where one is truly happy. Before helping others you must remember about yourself, but you must not forget about those who are really in need.
Argument B: I think that personal pursuit is better because i think that helping yourself before others is natural. I think that no matter what you do everything comes back you even if your helping others, because you dont want your life to be out of whack helping others. | Yes |
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: Do We Still Need Libraries?
Additional Info: What are libraries for, and how should they evolve?
Claim: We need libraries
Reason: Libraries have always been about making information available to all people.
Warrant 1: information is not readily available elsewhere
Warrant 2: information is more readily available elsewhere | information is not readily available elsewhere |
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: One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest, East of Eden, Nabokov's Lolita, 1984, Martian Chronicles - I could go on and on. For real. There's very little that beats the world described in books.
Argument B: I thick that book are better than TV is it is better i can put you in a whole norther wold and it is educational | Yes |
An argument has confusing reasoning if its components (claims and premises) seem not to be connected logically. Decide whether the argument has Confusing Reasoning or Does Not Have Confusing Reasoning | Topic: America, the backwards country.?:
Argument: the liberal demacrates have made it ok to do all these things. If, in some maraculus way, drugs or alchahal became band, they would IMMIDIATELY demand that the law is "unconstitutional" i heard that they took out the picture of George washington praying out of a school because they said that it was "unconstitutional". HES OUR FOUNDING FATHER! And they just took his picture out because they thought it was suggeting the christian values in the school. But they teach the kids about hinduism and judisum, but when it comes to christianity, ITS ILLEAGAL to teach the kids about that. And INstead of trying to keep kids out of sex, THEY ARE HANDING OUT CONDOMS, and trying to "encourge" the mto safe. I agree, its twisted. | Has Confusing Reasoning |
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: Stealing....?:
Argument: Since this is a family member, you have to work things out. Confront them privately and tell them to stop it. Threaten to tell the whole family if they do not repay what they took-not just from you but your entire family.
Do not fall for sob stories. The time for sob stories was before she took the money.
What did she need the money for? Gambling, drugs, etc? Then demand that she gets counciling. If it was for a valid reason, then you need to be firm but fair. This is not how people behave; especially towards family.
Avoid getting the police involved if possible. This will only lead to being on Dr. Phil. Change the locks and explain she is no longer welcome in your house. | Is Not Unclassified |
Given a pair of argument clauses coming from the same document, predict if they are members of the same argument or not. | Clause 1: He was presented with a statement to sign, but the applicant said that its contents were untrue and that he had been tortured
Clause 2: The applicant was released on a Thursday and saw a doctor on the Friday | Not members of the same argument |
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)? | 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. | 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 off topic or doesn't address the issue. | Argument A: The Marriage issue should be out of politicians and lawmakers. Marriages are for the Church to decide, Congress have no power to pass a legislation forcing religious institutions about marriage. Maybe, if the courts were to allow gay marriage, it would be alright since it is not a religious institution, it doesn't break the Separation between Church and State ruled by the Supreme Court.
Argument B: Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman. | No |
Argument conclusions are valid if they follow from the premise, meaning a logical inference links the premise to the conclusion. Given the conclusions below: Is conclusion A better than conclusion B in terms of validity? | Premise: Rudy Giuliani told reporters about the 2006 civilian trial of "20th hijacker": "I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law.... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice.
Conclusion A: The AUMF authorizes use of military force
Conclusion B: Terror subjects are due a fair trial in civilian courts. | No |
Compare the given two versions of the same claim and determine which one is better (Claim 1 or Claim 2). | Claim 1: Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that "this is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates."
Claim 2: Ta-Nehisi Coates [argues](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/) that "this is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates." | Claim 2 |
You are given the following question, stance (Yes vs. No) towards this question and a type of reasoning (logos vs. pathos). Your task is to form a persuasive argument toward the question that supports the given stance based on the following type of reasoning | Question: Should shopping malls generally be allowed to open on holidays and Sundays?
Stance: No
Reasoning: Emotional reasoning (pathos-oriented) | Even though smaller shops could benefit from the additional freedom , supermarkets and shopping centres should not be allowed to be open for business on arbitrary Sundays and holidays , because other people have to work in the shops on the weekend . Furthermore you can go shopping 6 days a week , |
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)? | firefox is much better. <br/> It remembers passwords with greater gusto. <br/> add-ons allow you to personalize your browser in every way. I love - tabs (aging and remembering them when you close the browser, weatherfox, gestures, <br/> there is even a tab that lets you display the page in IE format if something is incompatible (rare, only SAP at work) <br/> and the way you can put the link logos in the tool bar rocks. <br/> much friendlier and a better browser, and not just because i don't want to support MS. Because i don't care about that, a good product is a good product. | 2 |
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. | Information can be stored and passed to others.
The Pro is null. | Information can be stored and passed to others. The Pro is null. |
Given the following two argumentative discourse units (ADUs), determine whether the two ADUs are connected by any argumentative relation (e.g. support or attack). | ADU1: Wind energy is a viable form of alternative energy production that should be encouraged in use.
ADU2: Government regulation is important for this, | Yes |
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)? | As an ambitious, young person wanting to become a lawful, successful, homicide detective, I would not be lenient with any murderer in my midst. <br/> Hopefully, the murder wouldn't be the result of a pleasure/malicious-kill, so that the sentencing won't be as harsh, but nonetheless, all murderers must be tried. After all, hopefully my spouse will understand that having to live in hiding is basically the same as being in prison except much worse since there would be little chance for parole since they will have to live with the guilt and/or the fear of being caught for the rest of their lives. | 3 |
Predict the stance (pro, con, or unknown) of the user on the corresponding big issue from the text of the claim. | Humans are born to be bad , and it is only through positive upbringing and willing choices that can change that . The first round will be an acceptance . The second round will explain our stance . The third round will be a cross-examination/rebuttal . The fourth round will be a closing statement . Please be respectful of the other person and what they believe . Do not use profanity or personal attacks of any kind . List sources where you can . This debate is open for anyone who would like t argue on the topic . | con |
An argumentation should be seen as well-arranged if it presents the given issue, the composed arguments, and its conclusion in the right order. Usually, the general issue and the particularly discussed topics should be clear before arguing and concluding about them. Notice, however, that other orderings may be used on purpose and may still be suitable to achieve persuasion. Besides, notice that, within the given setting (online debate forum on a given issue), some parts may be clear (e.g., the issue) and thus left implicit. How would you rate the arrangement of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | 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. | 2 |
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: Without intimidation , without the illusion of superiority , they ’re just firing blanks .
Topic: gun control | non-argument |
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 non-sense, has no logical sense or is confusing. | Argument A: If evealution is real find me someone/something that is half way
Argument B: Oops, I meant to say creationist version of evolution. My apologies. | Yes |
Extract the Toulmin components (Premise, Claim, Backing, Refutation and Rebuttal) from the given argument. The output should be in the format: "Premise: <premise> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Refutation: <refutation> --> Rebuttal: <rebuttal>" or "Rebuttal: <rebuttal> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Backing: <backing>" | The writer is an idiot. As a responsible, rational, moral human being, I have a hierarchy of responsibility. I have a responsibility to my society but I also have a responsibility to my family. My responsibility to my family trumps my responsibility to society. This is why I work to support my family rather than work to support a random group of my fellow human beings. Ergo, if I have kids that I love and I live in a place with a crappy school district, you're damn right I'm going to put them in a private school if I'm able to do it. I'm not going to ship them off to some crappy public just so I can use them as a tool for making a sociopolitical point. | Backing: As a responsible, rational, moral human being, I have a hierarchy of responsibility. I have a responsibility to my society but I also have a responsibility to my family. My responsibility to my family trumps my responsibility to society. This is why I work to support my family rather than work to support a random group of my fellow human beings.
|
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: Do you care about the swine flu ? stance: no:
Argument: I care about it exactly as much as I care about the regular flu. Which is to say "not at all."
As is so often the case, normal precautions such as washing one's hands regularly (with non-antibacterial soap, please!), sneezing into tissues or handkerchiefs, and just plain staying home when you feel sick would go an awfully long way toward ending this "epidemic." | Does Not Have Detrimental Orthography |
Given an argumentative claim, decide whether it is in need of further revision or can be considered to be phrased more or less optimally (Suboptimal or Optimal). | The enforcement cost of deporting DACA workers would cost around $10,000 per removal, according to the [Center for American Progress](https://www.cato.org/blog/economic-fiscal-impact-repealing-daca). The total deportation cost, aside from economic losses, would then be $7.5 billion. | Suboptimal |
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: Dropping the Ball
Additional Info: Should more undergraduate schools follow in the footsteps of Spelman College and consider dropping intercollegiate sports programs?
Claim: Do not drop sports program in undergraduate schools
Reason: School sports have a place as long as academics come first.
Warrant 1: academics never come before sports in practical life
Warrant 2: academics come before sports in practical life | academics come before sports in practical life |
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)? | its simple, how would we be able to adapt to different enviroments. Over time we adapted to what suited us best otherwise why arn't we one skin colour, why are there so many types of animals | 2 |
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/[...]”. | I had a couple of challenges hooking them up,
but that had as much to do with the receiver as the headphones.
The important thing to me was that they have plenty of volume.
My hearing stinks after a tour in VN.
I can't opine on the nuances of the quality of the sound because of that hearing.
They are hooked up to the "center" speaker output
so I get to actually hear the dialogue and not the music.
It seems like every movie and TV program these days have background music so d---ed loud one would think it was an MTV music video!
They squeeze my generous size head
but the band will probably stretch with time. | TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY
VALUE
TESTIMONY
VALUE
FACT
TESTIMONY
VALUE
TESTIMONY
VALUE |
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? | I am in no way "Wealthy" however I chose to send my children to private school that has a religion based background. Our schools are taking God out of the schools and that is my main deciding factor. I am involved as a parent, why is it that we have religion in Jails but not in the public school system. And I think its every parents right to chose to educate their child as they see fit. The curriculum is much more hands on and students learn more. They could do this at public schools but do not. So I think your argument needs a lot more supporting facts. Seems to me that you would send your child to private school if you felt you had the means. Where there is a will there is a way. There are grants that can be available too. If the government actually spent money on the school system instead of other things that would be different. | Persuasive |
Extract the Toulmin components (Premise, Claim, Backing, Refutation and Rebuttal) from the given argument. The output should be in the format: "Premise: <premise> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Refutation: <refutation> --> Rebuttal: <rebuttal>" or "Rebuttal: <rebuttal> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Backing: <backing>" | Young Mr. Powell is another tragic example of the fallacy of Home Schooling. No matter how well intentioned, few parents have the education, time, and skills needed to teach. Those who find the schools beneath their ideal learning experience should join everyone in an effort to renew our schools, demanding better performance and. outcome and be willing to support the much needed
funding.
But the belief that the schools and teachers must meet their Christian education agenda ends any discussion.
The whole issue is just another example of a populace that has fallen into a big ditch, dug by those who despise authority (Nobody tells me what to do), see plots and loss of freedom in every shadow, behind every bush, and in anything that will require them to think before they vote.
Befuddled wishful thinking rules. | Premise: No matter how well intentioned, few parents have the education, time, and skills needed to teach. --> Claim:
|
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: The last thing which a school ought to do is attempt to hinder the creative expression - the individuality - of their still-developing children.
Argument B: i think we should not wear school cloths because their so weird and the good reason why is that no more bulling and also THERE DUMB STUPID AND GAY | No |
An argument should be seen as cogent if it has individually acceptable premises that are relevant to the argument’s conclusion and that are sufficient to draw the conclusion. Try to adequately weight your judgments about local acceptability, local relevance, and local sufficiency when judging about cogency—unless there is a particular dimension among these that dominates your view of an argument. Accordingly, if you identify more than one argument, try to adequately weight the cogency of each argument when judging about their “aggregate” cogency—unless there is a particular argument that dominates your view of the author’s argumentation. How would you rate the cogency of the author’s argument on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Human nature is to endeavor personal pursuit. If you assume that human nature is to endeavor advancing the common good, then you're going to get screwed by someone who endeavors personal pursuit. Most Americans endeavor advancing the common good; which is why they get screwed by politicians who endeavor personal pursuit. If everyone endeavors personal pursuit, then we would keep each other in check. It is easier to get most people to endeavor personal pursuit than it is to get most people to endeavor advancing the common good; which is why communism failed. | 1 |
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: Offshore drilling
Sentence 1: A moratorium on offshore drilling is also necessary due to the amount of damage and pollution drilling does to the environment.
Sentence 2: Offshore drilling is a dirty and dangerous practice that threatens the health of our oceans and the communities that depend on them. | High Similarity (HS) |
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: Cmv: it should be acceptable for men to piss sitting down.:
Argument: One morning I was in a rush. I had to take a piss, so I decided to multi-task by brushing my teeth while I pissed sitting down. A few days later, I was hung over as hell, and just decided to sit while I pissed. Over time I began to do it more often. Now I muti-task quite often by sitting to piss while I brush my teeth, and often just sit to piss when I'm feeling lazy. I probably do it half of the time. I haven't told anyone because it would be considered "gay" and all that jazz. I also do it when I have morning wood and have to piss so I can tuck my dick under the toilet seat. As you know, trying to piss with morning wood can be very annoying. Just because chicks have to do it doesn't mean tha it's feminine for men to do it. It has nothing to do with being gay because it does not involve sexuality at all. CMV.
| Does Not Have Detrimental Orthography |
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: Not every American citizen believes in God. The words Under God are pretty much forcing this belief upon everyone, which in itself is unconstitutional.
Argument: Removing under god would promote religious tolerance | The comment vaguely/implicitly supports the argument. |
Identify the reasons in the given argumentative text. | If everyone in the world smoked a J at the same exact time, we'd have world peace for two hours... or at least I think I saw that on the internet once??? | |
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 non-sense, has no logical sense or is confusing. | Argument A: Im going to take the Obama approach to this <br/> Abortion is never something a women would take lightly there will always be a lot of thinking asking for help and even praying involved with making that decision. The pro-life people just don't seam to understand that we also think the abortion is a sad and awful thing and we pro-choicers hope nobody would ever have to make this difficult and life altering situation. there for this decision should be left to the women and not some man miles away in d.c. that has never faced it
Argument B: Pro-lifers want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers, ironic eh? <br/> Women are people too, and it should be their choice to what they bring into the world. | Yes |
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: Is it ethical to ban people from the pledge of allegiance?:
Argument: I agree with you. If a person WANTS to say the Pledge before a meeting (game, class, etc) then they should be allowed to do so. No one is forcing others to join in and pledge -- they are perfectly within their rights to abstain.
It really p*sses me off when people try to claim that just "hearing" the pledge violates their rights. Well, what about my right to assert myself and my allegiance to my country?? I would think that would trump anything else. | Does Not Have Detrimental Orthography |
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: Is porn wrong? Absolutley not!! Everyone has their own definition of morality. If you don't believe in it then don't look at it. The people who participate in it do it because they want to and they probably enjoy it. Whether your the person watching porn or participating in it, porn is a choice not a case of right or wrong.
Argument B: whatever ? <br/> porn is a f**king way of life ? <br/> i bet yous any money that all the people on the yes argument on how porn is wrong are virgins :L | Yes |
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/[...]”. | I wish I had read the reviews on these earbuds before I wasted money on them.
I have only had these for around 7 weeks and didn't get to use them very much before they died.
THEY WILL NOT CHARGE!
I saw another site with reviews on this product
and at least 50% of them were complaining that the same thing happened to them.
They need to take this product off the market until the issue is resolved. | VALUE
TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY
FACT
POLICY |
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: Christianity or atheism:
Argument: God helps those who help themselves! So i will go and healp myself to school laptops then god will help me? | Is Emotionally Deceptive |
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: Are Casinos Too Much of a Gamble?
Additional Info: Do the economic and fiscal benefits of casinos outweigh their social and economic costs?
Claim: Casinos are too much of a gamble
Reason: Casinos will cause more debt from people losing their life savings there.
Warrant 1: That money will generate revenue into the economy, people aren't aware the risks of gambling and aren't responsible for controlling themselves
Warrant 2: That money will generate revenue into the economy, people are aware the risks of gambling and are responsible for controlling themselves | That money will generate revenue into the economy, people aren't aware the risks of gambling and aren't responsible for controlling themselves |
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: Ban plastic water bottles:
Argument: craig is a hypocryte with bottled water and should not be taken seriously | Lacks Commitment |
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: Define "order and detail." Existence isn't a BMW. You are falling for the old 'watch maker' argument. You fail to recognize the significance of self replicating systems within a naturally selecting environment. A good read: "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Not as aggressive as his more recent "The God Dilusion," and equally well written.
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. | No |
Is the following argument clause a premise? | therefore, "charged", within the meaning of Article 6 para. 2
(Art. 6-2) of the Conventio | No |
Given the following two argumentative discourse units (ADUs), determine whether the two ADUs are connected by any argumentative relation (e.g. support or attack). | ADU1: As an umbrella term, its impact can be nebulous,
ADU2: Though many point out the dangers of online bullying or even adult predators, | No |
Extract the Toulmin components (Premise, Claim, Backing, Refutation and Rebuttal) from the given argument. The output should be in the format: "Premise: <premise> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Refutation: <refutation> --> Rebuttal: <rebuttal>" or "Rebuttal: <rebuttal> --> Claim: <claim>" or "Backing: <backing>" | There is no secret to the rise of private schools. I have taught in private and public schools for 25 years and private schools have:
1. More resources 2. More respect for students and teachers 3. More accountability for students and teachers. Australians are not mistaken - unfortunately the private system is miles ahead.
Naturally, if a school has the power to select and expel students at will, it's easier teaching there. I have a few acquaintances who couldn't manage to teach successfully at public high schools in Western Sydney and went to the private system for a relatively easy life. Many others, however, persisted in the more difficult environment and added immense value to disadvantaged students. I know which I respect more. And what are we supposed to do with the many children who have learning difficulties, behaviour problems or specific disabilities? Put them in junior workhouses? I'm all right Jack...bugger you is a great attitude, especially for a teacher. | Premise: More resources 2. --> Claim: Australians are not mistaken - unfortunately the private system is miles ahead.
Premise: More respect for students and teachers 3. --> Claim: Australians are not mistaken - unfortunately the private system is miles ahead.
Premise: More accountability for students and teachers. --> Claim: Australians are not mistaken - unfortunately the private system is miles ahead.
|
Score the helpfulness of the following review on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest). | They stay on my head while I exercise on various machines. The sound quality is great. Bluetooth works great. | 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 off topic or doesn't address the issue. | Argument A: Were we magically created in a few days or an outcome which was processed throughout billions of years? <br/> Which is more realistic? <br/> Which was more likely to happen?
Argument B: Really? What if I my opponent has ACTUALLY been brainwashed and indoctrinated since birth? Would that make your arguments any weaker? | No |
How would you rate the overall quality of the author’s argumentation on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | The argument that porn would expose one to the reality in life, and thus increasing one's maturity and prevent possible future sexual assaults, is totally crap. <br/> porn is definitely wrong. after a dosage, the guilt of wasting ur time, wasting energy, wasting effort and not devoting urself to another thing and regretting that you should not have started would almost kill you. trust me. <br/> its a road that shld not be taken, its as bad as smoking and dugs. i think the only reason its not banned in most developed countries is that they are facing an aging population. | 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: Europe does have a predominantly Christian heritage, but no modern, religiously tolerant politician should oppose the membership of a country on the basis of religious differences. This would be intolerant and wrong.
Conclusion A: Opposing Turkey's admission on the basis of Europe's Christian heritage is wrong.
Conclusion B: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans | Yes |
An argument has unclear meaning if its content is vague, ambiguous, or implicit, such that it remains unclear what is being said about the issue (it could also be an unrelated issue). Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument has Unclear Meaning or Does Not Have Unclear Meaning | Topic: Will the one laptop per child initiative work? stance: yes:
Argument: I'm embarassingly ignorant on the status of this project so perhaps some of you kind souls can fill me in.
I'm wholly convinced that a useful stipped-down laptop can be manufactured for less than $100. When travelling, I was always issued this super-handy Asus EEE which cost about $300 USD.
I'm also wholly convinced that access to information infrastructure is an essential part of nation-building, but Microsoft Powerpoint is not. (In fact, that inspires a new debate topic!) Perhaps somebody can clarify for me, will these laptops have access to the internet? | Does Not Have Unclear Meaning |
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: All these arguments about that porn leads to addiction are annoying me now -_- . Porn hardly ever leads to addiction, just in weak people, maybe who have mental health issues, or attachment issues or find it hard to separate fantasy from reality. I watch porn once or twice a day when i'm on my own but also have a great boyfriend and we have sex once or twice (sometimes three, if i'm lucky!) times a week, we use porn to spice things up in the bedroom but we know it's all fantasy, we're not idiots, we just have desires that need to be met!
Argument B: No porn is not wrong. Mabye some people thing it is wrong but really it is not. Come if their was no porn and sex how would we have babies. | Yes |
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? | The next disadvantage is the impact on the university graduates . <mask> And the university graduates are not enough experience. Than, force them to choose some low-level position and wages . | No |
A small set of talking points, termed key points can be used to form a concise summary from a large collection of arguments on a given topic. Does the following key point match the given argument? | Key point: child actors can easily get exploited and abused.
Argument: Child performers are losing their childhood | No |
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: Should prisons be built by the government of private companies?:
Argument: What difference would there be? Violent career criminals will continue to be released back into society to make room for nonviolent first-time offenders like deadbeat dads (how do you pay child support in prison?), drunk drivers with multiple misdemeanor convictions (but no accidents), recreational marijuana users caught with a single joint in their possession, scam artists who prey on the wealthy, etc. Whoever builds them, prisons should be for the long-term incarceration of major drug dealers, robbers, rapists, and murderers in order to protect society from these violent sociopaths. | Lacks Relevance |
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: The only one playing god is the man with the gun. stance: agree:
Argument: I hear all too often that science is 'playing God'. We as a species have superceeded the need for natural selection. We must control our evolution to ensure our survival. Ever since 1999 we have decoded the human genome, and it is time we manipulate it. Our stability as a society has allowed the meek to prosper, not to say that this is bad, but it has proven damning to our condition. We grow ever weaker as we use advanced medication to suffice our ailments to the point that we are not aware of our declination. The only fortitude is in our ability to plan our evolution. If god did not intend us to do so, he is nearsighted. If god wishes us to stop, he is inhumane.
-
To play god is to assume the state of mind of supreme judgement. Judgement that self-validates the terms of life, and the value thereof. To play god is to take life. The only one playing God is the man with the gun. | Is Unclassified |
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 |
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 clear, crisp, to the point or well written. | Argument A: Advancing the Common good is a better endeavor than a personal pursuit. For example there are those who want to help others. A personal pursuit however is only for those selfish people who only care about themselves. The common good happens to some from a loan for college, to a charity for an orphanage, a school, etc
Argument B: I say the common good because of the type of forces that you can make as a whole group. like that person that says that by not voting they are not making a difference and when you look at the whole the population or percentage is bigger than of those who did vote. So if you want a good to be down and win you need more than yourself to win by looking for others with the same views. | Yes |
An argument should be seen as cogent if it has individually acceptable premises that are relevant to the argument’s conclusion and that are sufficient to draw the conclusion. Try to adequately weight your judgments about local acceptability, local relevance, and local sufficiency when judging about cogency—unless there is a particular dimension among these that dominates your view of an argument. Accordingly, if you identify more than one argument, try to adequately weight the cogency of each argument when judging about their “aggregate” cogency—unless there is a particular argument that dominates your view of the author’s argumentation. How would you rate the cogency of the author’s argument on the scale "1" (Low), "2" (Average) or "3" (High)? | Human nature is to endeavor personal pursuit. If you assume that human nature is to endeavor advancing the common good, then you're going to get screwed by someone who endeavors personal pursuit. Most Americans endeavor advancing the common good; which is why they get screwed by politicians who endeavor personal pursuit. If everyone endeavors personal pursuit, then we would keep each other in check. It is easier to get most people to endeavor personal pursuit than it is to get most people to endeavor advancing the common good; which is why communism failed. | 1 |
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)? | Yes definately i will turn him in to the police because he has commited a murder and its a sin. Maybe if he gets arrested,he can feel guilty for what he has done and try not to repeat it again. And also how can i trust a murderer?He can even be telling a lie to me and maybe can kill me for someone else in the future.so Just by confiding to me does not make him clean and innocent. | 3 |
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: Is porn wrong:
Argument: well, the people who watch porn,
i guess thats ok, its NORMAL.
but the people who are
IN the porn, that is not normal..
i read it in a abnormal psychology book,
that means they have a disorder | Is Emotionally Deceptive |
A small set of talking points, termed key points can be used to form a concise summary from a large collection of arguments on a given topic. Does the following key point match the given argument? | Key point: flag burning should not be allowed as it causes civil unrest
Argument: flag burning is an inflammatory act | Yes |
An argument should be seen as cogent if it has individually acceptable premises that are relevant to the argument’s conclusion and that are sufficient to draw the conclusion. Try to adequately weight your judgments about local acceptability, local relevance, and local sufficiency when judging about cogency—unless there is a particular dimension among these that dominates your view of an argument. Accordingly, if you identify more than one argument, try to adequately weight the cogency of each argument when judging about their “aggregate” cogency—unless there is a particular argument that dominates your view of the author’s argumentation. How would you rate the cogency of the author’s argument 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. | 3 |
Is the following argument clause a premise? | The Government contested this claim | No |
A small set of talking points, termed key points can be used to form a concise summary from a large collection of arguments on a given topic. Generate multiple key points on the given topic and provide the stance of each key point towards the topic. | Topic: We should fight urbanization | Cities offer more opportunities (con)
Urbanization benefits the economy (con)
Urbanization benefits the environment (con)
Restrictions on migration would benefit people in the rural areas economically/socially (pro)
Urbanization causes crime (pro)
Urbanization harms the environment (pro)
Urbanization is causing a strain on the cities' resources (pro) |
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 think that personal pursuit is more important because in order to help others you have to help yourself first. At the time it may seem selfish but once that you get to a point that you are good at what your doing then you can help others do the same. So not only are you helping yourself but you are also helping others.
Argument B: Obviously everybody wants to say that they would help mankind, the world or save the city, but only a small percent of people would actually do this. I honestly would like to help mankind. I would like to save the world, but I'm posting under personal pursuit because I do not know what I would do in one of these situations. <br/> Anyway, if people did believe in the advancement of the common good all of the economical cars and factories wouldn't just now be made. These inventions would have come out as soon as the theory of global warming came out. | Yes |
Segment the following review into its elementary argumentative units. Elementary argumentative units are the fundamental components of an argument. | When I received them I plugged them in and started play a song. Then as soon as I stood up the I started to hear static noises. I tried playing with the cable to connect but it didn't work. So spent money on a pair that only lasted for a least 10 minutes. | When I received them I plugged them in and started play a song.
Then as soon as I stood up the I started to hear static noises.
I tried playing with the cable to connect
but it didn't work.
So spent money on a pair that only lasted for a least 10 minutes. |
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)? | 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? | 2 |
Compare the given two versions of the same claim and determine which one is better (Claim 1 or Claim 2). | Claim 1: Exaggerating the negative can lead to hopelessness
Claim 2: Exaggerating the negative can lead to hopelessness. | Claim 2 |
You are given the following question, stance (Yes vs. No) towards this question and a type of reasoning (logos vs. pathos). Your task is to form a persuasive argument toward the question that supports the given stance based on the following type of reasoning | Question: Should the the morning-after pill be sold over the counter at the pharmacy?
Stance: No
Reasoning: Logical reasoning (logos-oriented) | the impact of the morning-after pill is so massive, particularly due to its abortive effect because the morning-after pill could result in a decrease in the use of condoms and lead to an increase in new infections with Aids the morning-after pill has a number of side effects even though a visit to the doctor and professional advice should remain mandatory |
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)? | One of the key component to Christianity is FAITH. Just you because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Gravity, for example, you can't see it, feel it, or hear it, but you know it's there. Faith to Christians is the same way. | 3 |
An argument has unclear meaning if its content is vague, ambiguous, or implicit, such that it remains unclear what is being said about the issue (it could also be an unrelated issue). Given the following argument and the topic of the debate the argument appeared in. Decide whether the argument has Unclear Meaning or Does Not Have Unclear Meaning | Topic: Mark mcgwire hall of famer? stance: yes, he should be in the hall!:
Argument: We have to accept that for a 20 year span starting in about 1985 or so, steroids were prevalent in Major League Baseball. Will some of baseball's records be broken and changed because of this? Probably. But so what. The Hall of Fame is, in effect, a museum that chronicles the history or baseball, good and bad. To omit someone from the Hall of Fame because of 'suspected' steroid use is ridiculous. It is crazy to let one person into the Hall because we 'don't think' they took steroids, but prevent someone else from entering because "we think" they did. | Does Not Have Unclear Meaning |
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? | Public Schools are not allowed to teach religions which also teaches virtues. I would not having a problem sending mine to public if they were learning. When I taught in NYC before NCLB, students were leveled off to their level and abilities so children can advance and not be waiting for others to catch up and learn English even. Mine went to Public in Florida in Kindergarten and 1st and were coloring all day and playing computer games, and 1/2 the class did not speak English, in the same class! Hence, I switched to Private....So whoever this lady is saying parents are Bad for sending them to private should bite her tongue. We work hard to pay for private school education and I have been on both sides to see the difference. | Persuasive |
Consider the two arguments below (Argument A and Argument B). Would you agree with the following statement?Argument A is more convincing because it provokes thought. | Argument A: Gay marriage is a lifestyle choice. It may be considered "unnatural", but that is between that person and his/her love interest. Love is all some people have... You can't take that one given right away because it makes you uncomfortable. They want acceptance and understanding. Let them be happy or just ignore it. You don't chose to be gay either. Who would chose to live that way? They are constantly being harrassed and can't be with their loved one. It's unfortunate and cruel. Please be respecful of them. They have done nothing wrong, God created them that way. 3
Argument B: It might be against the teachings of the bible etc... but only because a gay relationship bears no offspring which is why it was banned. <br/> Also it was seen to weaken the position of men. <br/> Time have changed... its time to accept. | No |
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)? | It would be better to have a lousy father than to not a have a father at all. If you were to grow up with out a father you would always have that empty void feeling about it. And if your father is lousy it helps you strive to be better than him. It could also cause you to start being responsible faster because the father isn't taking care of business. Like me and my brother, my father is lousy but I'm still happy i know who he is. Just because i cant imagine wondering about it. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits