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: Cmv: the cross of coronado does not belong in a museum.:
Argument: Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
_____
While the relic is interesting it has little historical significance. Coronado himself is a rather minor Conquistador and explorer of the New World. It rightfully belongs to the men who found it and it is their right to do with it whatever they choose.
Shortly after recovering the Cross, Dr. Jones meets with Walter Donovan. He thanks Mr. Donovan for his contributions to the museum and is impressed with his personal collection. So we know Dr. Jones doesn't feel every historical artifact belongs in a museum for public viewing. Indiana Jones' obsession with the Cross of Coronado is misguided, and it does not belong in a museum. CMV.
| Does Not Have Unclear Meaning |
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 legalize cannabis | Cannabis harms the body (con)
Cannabis increases lack-of-judgement/accidents (con)
Cannabis is a gateway-drug/addictive (con)
Legal cannabis can be getting to the hand of underage teenagers/children (con)
Legal cannabis will boost the black-market/criminal activity (con)
Cannabis is financially beneficial (pro)
Cannabis is safe/healthy/pain-relief (pro)
If cannabis was legalized it could be regulated (pro)
People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies (pro)
Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs yet remain legal (pro)
Legalizing cannabis will reduce black-market/criminal activity (pro) |
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: I thought that our great country was based on the foundation of it is up to you to believe in whatever you choose to, not what other people force upon you. I myself for example do not say under god for personal reasons, i instead say under canada because it is still true and makes sense. We need to go back to the time when people were alowed a free opinion wether it be in the black, white, gray, or where ever area you want, even your own. Basicaly i think we should not be forced to say it, we should only say it if we choose to, so i believe it should be removed.
Argument: Separation of state and religion | The comment vaguely/implicitly supports the argument. |
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)? | I believe it is more important to have personal pursuit because if you even want to begin to help others you have to help yourself. It's not bad to want to help the common good but if you're always putting other people before yourself you may start to forget about your own needs and wants in life. But I do think that you can have a balance of both. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits