niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: It should be allowed to patent genes.
 perspective: Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor
Output: undermine
claim: It should be allowed to patent genes.
 perspective: Therapy costs are increased and not affordable to poor people.
Output: undermine
claim: It should be allowed to patent genes.
 perspective: This is a disadvantage for poor people as it increases the therapy costs and makes them inaccessible.
Output: undermine
claim: It should be allowed to patent genes.
 perspective: Patenting enables knowledge sharing
Output: support
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows bring out the worse in people.
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows make celebrities out of talentless individuals.
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows allow ordinary individuals a chance of stardom.
Output: support
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows provide wonderful entertainment.
Output: support
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV can provide you with hours of enjoyment.
Output: support
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows allow us to see the real personalities of celebrities.
Output: support
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV shows are just there to make money for their creators.
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Many reality TV shows are distasteful
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Lots of the reality TV shows are of poor taste.
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: People have died in connection with reality TV
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: There have been deaths from the reality TV shows.
Output: undermine
claim: Reality TV shows are an important part of popular culture today.
 perspective: Reality TV has had fatal consequences.
Output: undermine
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Can create improve racial harmony
Output: support
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Sports create racial harmony.
Output: support
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Improving racial harmony is one of the benefits of sports.
Output: support
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Can cause diplomatic crises
Output: undermine
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Sports can hurt diplomacy.
Output: undermine
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: A diplomatic crisis can happen because of sports.
Output: undermine
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Can unite politically divided countries
Output: support
claim: Football does unify us.
 perspective: Sports unify divided countries.
Output: support
claim: Mossad should carry out extrajudicial killings.
 perspective: They damage Israel's foreign relations & reputation
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads encourage people to seek medical advice from health professionals. 
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads help remove the stigma associated with certain diseases and medical conditions.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC relieves the fear of lack of knowledge about diseases and medical conditions
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads promote drugs before long-term safety information is known.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Health care professionals may feel pressured by DTC prescription drug ads to prescribe drugs that may not be in the best interest of the patient.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: When seeing the ads Doctors might feel pressure to give them to patients
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads misinform patients.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads inform patients about diseases/medical conditions and possible treatments.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Patients receive information from DTC about diseases, medical conditions and treatments.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Information about diseases, medical conditions and treatments come from DTC 
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads should be allowed as protected free speech.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: stopping DTC ads will take away our free speech
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads increase health care costs.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads encourage over-medication.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: The ads make people take too much medicine
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Diseases and medical conditions are more likely to be treated when consumers see DTC prescription drug ads.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Normal conditions and bodily functions are medicalized and stigmatized by DTC prescription drug ads.
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: Seeing the Prescription ads make people believe they have conditions they don't
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: There will be more people self diagnosing from the Ads
Output: undermine
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads create revenue for drug companies, which can be used for research & development (R&D) to create new life-changing drugs.
Output: support
claim: Prescription drugs should be advertised directly to consumers.
 perspective: DTC prescription drug ads are banned in every country but the United States and New Zealand.
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: The military does not want conscription
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: The military feels that conscription is not the right answer. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Constriction is not something the military is interested in. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service would lead to unfair treatment of conscientious objectors
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: People who identify as conscientious objectors would be treated unfairly in the national service. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Conscientious objectors would, under the national service, not be treated equitably. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service would lead to unfair treatment of people with different opinions.
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: People who object national service would be treated unjustly. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Society needs a standing army ready to be called to action
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Society could really benefit from having the National Sevice again. 
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Have a standing army that is ready for action could be used in society right now. 
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: It will cost a fortune and be difficult to implement
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: The costs will be enormous and implementation is arduous. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: The program would be incredibly expensive and very hard to work through. 
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service is expensive and hard to follow through on.
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National services are difficult, and hard to get going.
Output: undermine
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service teaches young people valuable skills
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Young people can learn important skills in the national service. 
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Enrolling in national service teaches young people valuable skills.
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service could be offset against student loans
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service binds society together
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: Society is better connected with national service.
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service ensures that people and society are more connected to one another. 
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National service brings communities together.
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: National services bring people together. 
Output: support
claim: National service should be re-introduced.
 perspective: It is unjust for a government to coerce its citizens
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: children at 16 have no sense of decesion making
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Sixteen is too young to make decisions.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: At sixteen the brain is not developed enough to make decisions.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: 16 year olds are not responsible enough to vote. 
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: 16 year olds are not wise enough to vote at elections.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Minor's interests can be appropriately taken into consideration by the votes of their parents.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: A parent's vote should be counted as a vote in the interest of their child.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Voting at a lower age would increase participation
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: More citizens would participate if the voting age were lowered.
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: A lower voting age would result in an increase in participation.
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Younger people are more likely to not take the impact of their vote seriously.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Allowing young people to vote would be likely to result in inappropriate votes.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: 16 year olds are mature enough to vote
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: It is appropriate for 16 year olds to have the right to vote.
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: At sixteen there is a lack of maturity that is necessary to vote responsibly.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: 16 year olds don't have a high enough level of maturity to vote.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: 16 years old is too much of an immature age to vote.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: No. too immature.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Sixteen year olds are too immature to judge the validity of political arguments.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: It would help distinguish between levels of elections
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: There should not be different voting ages for different elections
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: YES, give them the rights they deserve!
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Sixteen years would be a better option in developed countries
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: I think they should have these rights.
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: I would say give them the rights that they should have.
Output: support
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: This slippery slope heads towards forcing all countires to lower the voting age to sixteen.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: This is a slippery slope that heads towards forcing all countries to allow voting at sixteen for all votes.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: This begins a slippery slope that can have global implications
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Doing so may encourage other countries to try something similar
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Would complicate elections
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: This would complicate elections.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Elections would become more complicated.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Doing so would add more complications to elections
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: This would make elections even more confusing
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: EU elections would put young people off voting
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: EU elections would discourage voting among young people.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: Voting among youth would be discouraged by EU elections.
Output: undermine
claim: 16 year olds should be able to vote at presidental elections.
 perspective: It would cause the youth to have less interest in voting
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: Having children is our duty and responsibility
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: It is our mission to have children
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: The purpose of life is to have children
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: Having children makes you a better citizens
Output: undermine
claim: You should never have children.
 perspective: People are better citizens when they have children
Output: undermine
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Any changes in advertising should come from businesses themselves rather than through banning.
Output: undermine
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Businesses bear the responsibility of self-policing themselves regarding sexist advertising.
Output: undermine
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Sexist advertising is profitable
Output: undermine
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Policies should be established which ban the promotion of sexist attitudes in advertising.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: The greater advertising community should come together to decide guidelines for what is and what is not considered sexist advertising that should be banned.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Women have a right to be free of stereotyping.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Banning advertising that is in poor taste will help both men and women see people as people and not as objects.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning.
Output: undermine
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Sexist advertising is harmful to society, especially women.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Viewing women as sex objects in advertising harms the status of women in society.
Output: support
claim: Sexist advertising must be banned.
 perspective: Sexist advertising is just another way of keeping women down.
Output: support
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: Anarchy has nothing to contribute but violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: Anarchist Communities have a very poor track record.
Output: undermine
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.
Output: support
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: These groups are the beneficiaries who reap their profits by kindling the deep settled hatred of among the oppressed
Output: support
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.
Output: support
claim: Anarchism is a valuable political ideology.
 perspective: Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: If people are forced to vote, they will not have the information needed to vote intelligently.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: A vote cast by someone who does not want to vote is unlikely to be based on careful consideration.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It will cause more people to become interested in politics
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Cause more people to become interested in politics
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It's a model that works
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: The right not to vote
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Voting is a civic duty
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: A true democratic mandate for the government
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Voting is the duty of every individual in a democratic society.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It is the duty of every citizen to vote.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Democracy is based on the freedom to vote or not.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: People can only make free choices if they want to, not because the state makes them
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: What's the point of voting as politicians don't listen to the public anyways
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Why should anyone bother to vote when politicians do whatever they want?
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Once elected, politicians do what they want, so why vote?
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Voting does not make sense as a rewardable/punishable action.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Rewarding or punishing someone for voting is nonsensical.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Voting should be neither rewarded or punished.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Convincing is more effective than forcing.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: You can persuade to vote but you can't force someone to do it.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: People rebel from rules and do what they want anyway
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Policing and financing the system is unmanageable
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It would be extremely difficult to police and finance mandatory voting.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It is unreasonable to expect that compulsory voting could be financed and verified.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Disadvantage groups are better represented when voting in mandatory.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: By making voting mandatory, disadvantaged groups improve their representation.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: Other places have successfully introduced compulsory voting.
Output: support
claim: Voting should be compulsory in the UK.
 perspective: It will reduce the power of special interest groups
Output: support
claim: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 perspective: The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause
Output: undermine
claim: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 perspective: Health insurance's individual mandate is constitutional.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 perspective: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is constitutional because of he commerce clause.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 perspective: There's nothing wrong with the health insurance mandate according to the constitution.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States’ individual health insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
 perspective: The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause 
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: There is a relatively higher female Injury rate
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Women are injured more frequently in combat.
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Woman are more susceptible to injury while in combat.
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Battlefield Rape is a concern
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: The raping of women in war is a very real concern.
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Woman may be raped if they are allowed in combat.
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Allowing women in combat strengthens the overall defense.
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: If we do not allow women in combat we are missing out on a whole demographic of potential valuable recruits.
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: The less rules there are on recruitment there more soldiers will be available. 
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: There should be equality between men and women. 
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Equality in the sexes is of vital importance.
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Male and female equality is vital to society.
Output: support
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Men may behave inappropriately if women are in their unit.
Output: undermine
claim: Women should be allowed to take part in combat.
 perspective: Bad behavior may result from men when women join them in combat.
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: You aren't setting up a good relationship with your child from the start.
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: Kids with overly strict parents are under a lot of pressure.
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: Chidren are not their parent's "property"
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: parents do not own their children
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: parents can set boundaries but kids do what they will
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: A child needs to play.
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: children require play and fun
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: children should play and be innocent 
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: Kids with strict parents are more likely to rebel.
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: being too strict causes rebels
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: you will cause kids to be sneaky
Output: undermine
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: It is better for them in the long run
Output: support
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: strict parenting has its benefits
Output: support
claim: Strict parenting works best.
 perspective: in the long run children are better off with rules and restrictions 
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Sets a critical level of knowledge of what a student should know
Output: undermine
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized tests keep schools accountable in making sure their students are prepared for the world.
Output: undermine
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Students need to know certain things and standardized tests ensure that students are ready to graduate.
Output: undermine
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Too much focus on test prepation to the detriment of other skills
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Focusing so much on test preparation takes away from other skills that students could be developing.
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Students need to be well-rounded and prepared for the world, not just prepared to take tests.
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized tests are arbitrary
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized tests discriminate against minorities
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy
Output: support
claim: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.
 perspective: Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”
Output: support
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe. 
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: Schengen creates an invisible wall around Europe 
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries
Output: support
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: It is difficult to monitor the area as it increases in size
Output: support
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: There is currently too little supervision over the area because of its increase in size
Output: support
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: The Agreement helps to promote the stability of the European Union
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: The Agreement helps keep the European Union intact
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: Schengen helps countries work together to abolish crime
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: Schengen allows countries to aid each other in their quest to abolish crime on a global scale
Output: undermine
claim: The Schengen Agreement must be dissolved.
 perspective: The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age. 
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Radicalisation cannot be stopped by criminalisation
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Limiting communication of extremists can cripple their threatening agendas.
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Extremist should not be allowed to use internet
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Problems are not going to be stopped by criminalisation
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: In some cases freedom of speech should be limited to protect a nation's security.
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Serious threats to our society sometimes justify restricting a specific person or group's freedom of speech.
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Blocking specific sites will disrupt extremist agendas that could threaten the free world.
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Blocking these sites is one of our best preventative measures in combating extremists.
Output: support
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Freedom of expression is a right guaranteed to all, and reducing or eliminating those freedoms is never acceptable.
Output: undermine
claim: Users of extremist websites should be punished.
 perspective: Freedoms are not earned or deserved they are given to all people equally and no one should determine which agendas are too extreme to receive this protection.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Schools must teach what is evidence-based, which would mean to teach abiogenesis and not Creationism.  
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Faith-based Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because they must be fact-based, s abiogenesis and evolution are.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Children deserve to hear both sides of the argument over the origin of life.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Because Creationism is a valid scientific theory, it should be given equal time in teaching.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: We must teach Creationism as an alternative theory because it is scientifically valid.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Creationism has theoretical answers to questions evolution can't answer.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Evolution cannot answer irreducible complexity like Creationism can.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Creationism isn't supported by the scientific community.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Communities have a right to insist on Creationism when it is popular.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Society should educate based on  objective facts, rather than subjective beliefs and opinion.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Unproven speculative beliefs have no place in education as it needs to be based on provable facts.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Everyone has the right to free speech including teachers. 
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Teachers should have freedom to explore ideas just as much as everyone else. 
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Evolution is allowed to be explored along with other theories.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: This bill allows teachers and students to explore all theories including evolution. 
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Creationism and evolution both have merits and it should be up to the children to decide which to believe in.
Output: support
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Teachers should only teach what is agreed to as fact.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to teach creationism in schools.
 perspective: Teachers shouldn't teach whatever they want.
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Choosing cultural values are the rights of the people.
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: People have a right to choose their cultural values
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: It may be necessary in the interests of national security
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Free speech is bad for national security.
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: The nation is at risk if everyone can say anything they want.
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Protection of Minors
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Limiting free speech protects youth.
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: In some cases freedom of speech should be limited to protect a nation's security.
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Serious threats to our society sometimes justify restricting a specific person or group's freedom of speech.
Output: support
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Everyone should be allowed free speech.
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right
Output: undermine
claim: It is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech.
 perspective: Freedom of expression is a right guaranteed to all, and reducing or eliminating those freedoms is never acceptable.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Refusing to stand for the national anthem angers many and sows division in our country.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: When a national figure such as an NFL player refuses to stand for the national anthem, it shocks people into paying attention and generates conversation. 
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: An NFL player, as a celebrity, can get people to notice and discuss issues by not standing for the anthem.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: When people see a celebrity not standing for the national anthem, it makes people notice and spurs debate.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Refusing to stand for the national anthem shows disrespect for the flag and members of the armed forces.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Although refusing to stand for the national anthem is an appropriate form of protest, it shows disrespect for the flag.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Refusing to stand for the national anthem can be viewed as disrespectful
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Not acknowledging the flag and anthem is  perceived as a slight to the military.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: A lack of respect and perceived lack of patriotism is brought forth by failing to stand for the national anthem.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: When one believes the United States is not living up to its ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice for all, refusing to stand for the national anthem is appropriate and justified.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: It is OK to not stand for the national anthem if you think the US is not honoring its ideals.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Freedom, liberty, and justice for all are important, and if someone feels the US is not honoring that, they are free to not stand for the anthem.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Peaceful protest, like not standing for the anthem, is protected by the First Amendment.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Our Constitution allows us to peacefully protest legally, so there's no reason someone should be forced to stand for the anthem.
Output: support
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Not standing for the national anthem is an ineffective and counterproductive way to promote a cause. 
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Not standing for the anthem doesn't do anything to actually protest injustice.
Output: undermine
claim: Refusing to stand for the National Anthem is an appropriate form of protest.
 perspective: Not standing for the anthem is counterproductive because it undermines your cause.
Output: undermine
claim: Alcohol should be banned.
 perspective: Banning alcohol protects third parties (family members) from harm.  
Output: support