niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: social media help people find friends
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: people who may not have many friends can use social media to get more
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: People can improve relationships and make new friends with social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Making new friends and improving relationships is a perk of social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media sites' advertising practices may constitute an invasion of privacy.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media sites' advertising practices might invade peoples' privacy.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media sites can have advertising practices that are an invasion to privacy.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media helps empower business women.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: business women can improve their life by social media
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Business women are empowered through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media allows business women to flourish.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can endanger the military, journalists, and activists.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can bring harm to groups such as the military, journalists and activists.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: There is a danger that social media can bring to the military, journalists and activists.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: When looking for a job social media can help
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: employers can search social media for new empolyees
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Job-seekers may find work with social media sites.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media helps job-seekers connect with employers
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can help disarm social stigmas.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can help alleviate the shunning of the socially marginalized.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can be a tool in the fight against social discrimination.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media allows for rapid communication during crisis events.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media facilitates quick and easy contact during times of crisis.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media is useful in times of emergencies as it enables instant contact.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Unauthorized sharing on social media exposes artists to copyright infringement, loss of intellectual property, and loss of income.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Sharing on social media without permission can expose artists to copyright infringement, loss of intellectual property, and income loss
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Unauthorized sharing on social media sites can lead to artists being infringed on their copyrights, loss of intellectual property, and income loss
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media helps people who are socially isolated or shy connect with other people.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Those who are more shy and introverted can connect with others through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: A bashful individual can fulfill his or her social needs through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media increases voter participation.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Getting the word out about how to vote on social media gives more people the chance to participate. 
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media helped to motivate people to get out and vote. 
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media is good for the economy.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: If you need a local part-time job than post it to social media.  
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media helps small businesses find talented workers.  
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media harms employees' productivity.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Employees are constantly losing their focus due to social media.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media posts cannot be completely deleted and all information posted can have unintended consequences.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media posts can't be deleted permanently and the information that is posted can have unintended consequences.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media posts are not able to be completely deleted and all the information that was posted can have unintended consequences.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media enables "sexting," which can lead to criminal charges and the unexpected proliferation of personal images.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Many young people talk sexually through social media.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: If you are not careful, sexting can be a start of criminal activity.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media lacks privacy and exposes users to government and corporate intrusions.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: A potential drawback of social media on societies is that it opens users up to privacy invasions by government and private entities.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media enables government and business interests to invade the privacy of its users.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media enables the spread of unreliable and false information.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media allows for the rapid dissemination of untrue data.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: One drawback of social media is that it quickly facilitates the spread of rumors and falsities. 
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media causes people to spend less time interacting face-to-face.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: When people use social media they tend to reduce their personal face-to-face  time with others.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Using social media takes time away from real, in-person interaction.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media offers a way for musicians and artists to build audiences even if they don't have a corporate contract.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Those in the arts can increase their audience using social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media provides academic research to a wider audience, allowing many people access to previously unavailable educational resources.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: More educational resources can be made available through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media facilitates cyberbullying.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Many people use social media to bully people.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media enables people to bully others online.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Being a part of a social media site can increase a person's quality of life and reduce the risk of health problems.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can help a person connect with people to alleviate depression. 
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective:  Social media is good for people who want to interact, but have social anxiety in person.  
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media allows people from around the USA to gather together to discuss political ideas and make change.  
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: The use of social media is correlated with personality and brain disorders.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: There are some personality and brain disorders that appear to connect to social media usage.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Corporations and small businesses use social media to benefit themselves and consumers.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media is beneficial to corporations and businesses.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Colleges and universities use social media to recruit and retain students.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Students can be recruited to universities through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media is often used by higher education to find new students.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Law enforcement uses social media to catch and prosecute criminals.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media can help prosecute criminals
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media allows law enforcement to catch and prosecute criminals.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Criminals can be caught using social media.
Output: undermine
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media aids the spread of hate groups.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Hate groups use social media to get their message out there.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Many individuals report to have seen some groups of hate using social media.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Criminals use social media to commit and promote crimes.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Social media has been found to be used for criminal activity.
Output: support
claim: social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces.
 perspective: Criminals can use social media to commit crimes.
Output: support
claim: Joe Calzaghe deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
 perspective: of course not he had 5 good fights and four of them were past there best.
Output: undermine
claim: Joe Calzaghe deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
 perspective: I disagree.  Four of his five good fights were his oppenents best fights. 
Output: undermine
claim: Joe Calzaghe deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
 perspective: No way.  Out of his five "good" fights, he lost four of them. 
Output: undermine
claim: Joe Calzaghe deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
 perspective: He has beaten the best of his generation
Output: support
claim: Joe Calzaghe deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest boxers of all time.
 perspective: Calzaghe...An All Time Great? Not a Puncher's Chance.
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The result of a handgun ban is lower crime and fewer deaths.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Lower crime rates and fewer deaths result when handguns are banned in a city.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: DC is unique and individuals should not have the right to bear arms.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The individual right to bear arms should be restricted in DC.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S.
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The majority of Americans support allowing the concealed carry of handguns.
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Many of the American adults are in favour of carrying concealed handguns
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Carrying a concealed handgun could help stop a public shooting spree.
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: In view of the continuous public shooting , carrying a concealed handgun by adults can stop such shooting spree
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The occurrence of public shooting spree can be prevented by the usage of concealed handguns by adults
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.
Output: undermine
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Concealed carry application requirements and background checks do not prevent dangerous people from acquiring weapons.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Individuals who should not own weapons are not prevented from purchasing them despite the requirements and background investigations of concealed carry applications
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The conditions for concealed carry permits and background checks do not inhibit criminals from obtaining weapons
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Public safety should be left to professionally qualified police officers, not private citizens with little or no expert training.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The safety of the public should be the responsibility of trained police officers, rather than private citizens with minimal training
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Only police officers, who have received professional qualifications, should protect the safety of the public, not private individuals who have not received such training
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal.
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: The act of having a concealed handgun on one's person increases the likelihood of an argument increasing in intensity and resulting in death
Output: support
claim: Handguns must be banned in Washington D.C.
 perspective: Concealed carrying of weapons results in a greater chance of a conflict becoming more intense to the point of death of one party.
Output: support
claim: The imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners.
 perspective: The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin
Output: support
claim: The imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners.
 perspective: Blasphemy is just a way for Putin to go after his enemies.
Output: support
claim: The imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners.
 perspective: Putin uses blasphemy charges in order to solidify his hold on power.
Output: support
claim: The imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners.
 perspective: Why use the form of a prayer and mention the Virgin in a political protest?
Output: undermine
claim: The imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners.
 perspective: What does religion have to do in a political protest?
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: In the event of an imminent attack it is only reasonable to use force to find information 
Output: support
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: It Should Be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists
Output: support
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaida do not respect the rights of individuals and the only way to fight fire is with fire
Output: support
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Time is of the essence in a crisis. When confronted with extremists who see a virtue in their own death, extraordinary methods may be required. 
Output: support
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Introducing the use of violence into the justice system means that liberties that have taken centuries to secure are lost 
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Torturing suspects undermines the rights of all Americans.
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: If legal principles are abandoned then there is little point in defending the liberties that democratic governments say they are so keen to defend 
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Allowing torture under any circumstances will allow the prospect of its routine use 
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: Allowing torture will make it an every day procedure.
Output: undermine
claim: We should use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
 perspective: If torture is allowed it will become commonplace.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world. 
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: The problem of food supply in the developing world could be solved by genetically modified organisms.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: The developing world's food supply problem could be solved by genetically modified organisms.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Genetically modified food should be legal to use because it is no different from any other scientific advance.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: The scientific advance of genetically modified food isn't different from any other advance and therefore should be legal to use.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Too much dependency on biotechnology companies would be created by GMOs.
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: We don’t need to eat GM food to be healthy 
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: We can eat non-GM food and still be healthy
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: It is possible to be healthy even without eating GM food
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Eating GM foods is not the only way to be healthy.
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: If we allow GM foods, where will science stop?
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: Allowing GM foods is the beginning of a slippery slope.
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: If GM foods are allowed, then it might extend further and further.
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: The use of GM foods can become to reliant on science and not nature.
Output: support
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: GM can make crops easier to grow by making them resistant to insects and herbicides.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: GM makes crops resistant to insects and herbicides, improving their ease of growth.
Output: undermine
claim: The development of genetically modified organisms have to be banned.
 perspective: GM reduces the difficulty of growing crops by making them resistant to insects and herbicides.
Output: undermine
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: There was a lack of transparency in News Corp
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: News Corp's lack of transparency make it a suspect organization.
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: The lack of transparency in News Corp creates a overwhelming distrust in the public view.
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Murdoch is morally unfit to run a powerful media company.
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Rupert Murdoch is unfit to run a media company that has such broad influence.
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Murdoch is unfit to run a company where morals need to matter.
Output: support
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Murdoch is effective at selling news
Output: undermine
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Murdoch is effective at selling news to the masses, sadly because of his lack of morals.
Output: undermine
claim: Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international media corporation.
 perspective: Murdoch excels at sensational headlines making for effective sales.
Output: undermine
claim: Government should be required to obtain warrants to access data that can be used to track an individual.
 perspective: Reducing trust in the state
Output: undermine
claim: Government should be required to obtain warrants to access data that can be used to track an individual.
 perspective: People do not trust a state that allows individual monitoring.
Output: undermine
claim: Government should be required to obtain warrants to access data that can be used to track an individual.
 perspective: If governments track people without warrants then people lose trust in the state.
Output: undermine
claim: Government should be required to obtain warrants to access data that can be used to track an individual.
 perspective: Warrants are needed to prevent abuse
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism outranks capitalism in security.
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Capitalism is less secure than socialist systems. 
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Capitalism replaced Socialism because it's the better system.
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism died out, making way for Capitalism.
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism can be molded to fit the needs of the moment. 
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism is a an ever changing set of principles that can be applied in new ways to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: socialism have changed and adapted to meet the upcoming challenges of the 21st century
Output: undermine
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Socialism is no longer seen as a viable option and even the Left has accepted that Capitalism is a better system.
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Capitalist principles are now being seen as a better option than Socialism even by the leaders of the Left. 
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: even left side leaders have accepted capitalism pirnciples and have given up on socialism as a creed
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Even the left fielders are now accepting capitalist principles over socialism in term of real way of life
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is better than socialism.
 perspective: Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Hold politicians to account
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Have your say
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Voice your opinions.
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: My vote does not count
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: My vote is not helpful.
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: When I vote, I don't feel like the vote I have is important.
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Civic duty
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Politicians will simply ignore how we vote
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Politicians will not pay any attention to our votes.
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Our votes will not be acknowledged by our representatives.
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: Politicians don't care about engaging with me about issues that matter for me.
Output: undermine
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: We don’t just vote for ourselves 
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: We vote not just for ourselves.
Output: support
claim: It is worth voting.
 perspective: When we vote, its not just for ourselves.
Output: support
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: Losing individual liberties leads to dangerous times.
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: The loss of individual freedoms is the beginning of dark times.
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: It would be letting the terrorists win
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: The terrorists would win in that case!
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: That is an open invitation for the terrorists.
Output: undermine
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of
Output: support
claim: Civil liberties should be sacrificed for the greater good.
 perspective: The protection of national security is worth the loss of some civil liberties.
Output: support
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting in hockey leads to concussions, mental health problems, and death.
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting draws fans and increases the game's entertainment value.
Output: support
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting is a hockey tradition that exists in the official rules and as an unwritten code among players.
Output: support
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting at the professional level sets a bad example for kids.
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting in hockey glorifies violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Fighting in hockey can promote violence
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: Hockey fights can glorify violence
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: The great aspect of the game of hockey are overshadowed by the unnecessary brutality displayed during brawls.
Output: undermine
claim: Fighting should be allowed in hockey.
 perspective: An overemphasis is given to the violence that accompanies fighting in hockey.
Output: undermine
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: We have forgotten to mind our own business
Output: undermine
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: Malevolent gossip can have a devastating impact on the person involved
Output: undermine
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: Gossip is not necessarily destructive
Output: support
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: Gossip isn't always detrimental.
Output: support
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: Gossip is important for moulding society
Output: support
claim: It is good to gossip.
 perspective: The gossip market is too large as it is. We should be careful about encouraging this intellectual dumbing down of our reading material. 
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Republika Srpska  cannot survive economically as an independent state.
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Republika Srpska isn't economically viable.
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: If independent, Republika Srpska wouldn't survive economically.
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: The present state structure does not work.
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: The current structure of the state is flawed. 
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: The structure of the current state is broken. 
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Secession will lead to renewed conflict.
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Renewed conflict will come about from secession. 
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Conflict will be begin again if secession takes place. 
Output: undermine
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Serbs have a right to Self-Determination.
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Serbs are entitled to control their own future. 
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: Self-Determination is a right that all Serbs are entitled to. 
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: There is legitimate precedent.
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: The precedent is valid. 
Output: support
claim: The Republika Srpska must be allowed to secede from Bosnia & Herzegovina.
 perspective: The is a valid criterion. 
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationism lacks scientific support, therefore should not be taught in a science lesson
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationism would need to be based on scientific support in order to be taught in these classes. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationism should not be taught because it is not based on factual science. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: creationism has no science support and need not be taught
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: creationism should not be taught due to lack of evidence
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: It may be damaging to some students in a compulsory science lesson
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationist lessons may be damaging to some students. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: In a compulsory science lesson, creationism may be damaging to certain students. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: it can be damaging to many students in a compulsory lesson of science
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: compulsory science lessons can be damaging 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science lessons are not always comprised of undisputed fact
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science lessons do not always represent undisputed facts. 
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science lessons are sometimes centered on theories instead of facts. 
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: science does not mean fact
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: scientific inquiry does not come up with facts
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationism is not based on scientific principles
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Even though creationism does not have scientific basis, it should be discussed at school.
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science lessons tend to deal with fact, as opposed to opinion as in a religious education lesson
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science is grounded in fact whereas religion is not. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Religious education is not based on scientific facts. 
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: science is fact and religious education is opinion
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Creationism is fact, according to a creationist
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Students deserve to learn about different theories from each religion
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Students should learn about all theories of our beginnings. 
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Students should learn creationist throeries from all religions. 
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: students should learn different ideas from religion
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: students need new ideas from religion
Output: support
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Parents may choose to raise their children according to a specific religion but that does not require that society must follow
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Everyone can choose their own beliefs. Nobody should be forced to follow a specific religion against their will.
Output: undermine
claim: Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons.
 perspective: Science teachers should be sympathetic to each individual student
Output: support
claim: Post Office Should Be Privatized.
 perspective: If the government can save the banks, why not the Post Office?
Output: undermine
claim: Post Office Should Be Privatized.
 perspective: The Post Office is inefficient
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Humanitarian missions would not be possible in states that have nuclear weapons.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: It is very difficult to intercede in humanitarian crises in states wherein nuclear weapons are present.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Other countries could strike against those developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: To keep other countries from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, other nations may pre-emptively strike.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: The intention of a state to develop nuclear weapons may incite military attacks by enemies and by other supporting countries.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence 
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Countries with nuclear weapons have the ability to set their own agenda.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: States with nuclear weapons are afforded more authority to set agendas at international levels.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: All states have a right to nuclear self-defense.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: To use  nuclear weapons in defense of the nation is lawful for all countries.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: countries have to right to self defense with nuclear weapons, even when they lack capacity in conventional weapon
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: all countries are entitled to self defense with nuclear weapons, even when they do not have the capacity to carry conventional weapons
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: The US must protect the international community.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: The US military is needed to ensure peace.
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Nuclear waste disposal is rarely safe/efficient; it is too much to expect a sqeaky clean disposal/disarmament of nuclear weapons  
Output: undermine
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament is impossible, rendering efforts to disarm pointless and simply wasteful
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Abolishment is an unrealistic goal
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Small countries would be able to pursue their independence without having to rely on larger countries.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, it is near impossible to guarantee that a nation has disarmed.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Small countries would no longer need the protection of larger ones, so could become more politically independent.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, you can never really know for sure whether they have disarmed.
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, as there can never be any guarantee that a nation has disarmed
Output: support
claim: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons.
 perspective: Thus the super power model will be broken and small countries will be finally given the chance to have political independence without the need of protection from a ‘big brother’.
Output: support