niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: Gay people should have the same human rights as Heterosexuals
Output: support
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: It Would Cause controversy in religious countries such as Ireland and Italy
Output: undermine
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better
Output: support
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: Gay marriage would improve all marriages.
Output: support
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: Nature Suggests That Same Sex Marriage is Illogical
Output: undermine
claim: Gay marriage should be legal.
 perspective: From a logical standpoint same sex marriage is illogical.
Output: undermine
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: Teachers being rewarded on the actual results they achieve can be fair.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It is fair to give rewards to teachers based upon results they achieve.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: Teachers will have an incentive to improve their teaching.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: Teachers can be given an incentive to improve their teaching.
Output: support
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.
Output: undermine
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: Teachers will attempt to cheat the system
Output: undermine
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence
Output: undermine
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It would be unfair to reward teachers for results they cannot influence.
Output: undermine
claim: Pay state school teachers based on merit.
 perspective: It will attract more teachers
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Rod Laver is without doubt the greatest ever!
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Laver has a record that is hard to match.
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: He has not won The Grand Slam, the single greatest, and most difficult, feat in tennis.
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: He has dominated like no one else before
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer has a great tennis record.
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer is one of the best tennis players of all time.
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: He has a losing record against Rafael Nadal. How can you be the best of all time if you're not even the best of your own era?
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Is not even the best in his current generation
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: He has just won Wimbledon 2012 (17th grand slam) and gone back to number 1 again
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer has won 17 grand slams.
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Lack of serious competition
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Was not ranked number one for the most years
Output: support
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: He is the all-time career money leader
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer is the Greatest EVER!
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer has a record that will be hard to beat.
Output: undermine
claim: Roger Federer Is Not the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time.
 perspective: Federer has won many games which is very hard for peopple to do.
Output: undermine
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: businesses need transport to remain cost efficient; we need good business to get out of the recession
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Public transport helps keep business profitable
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Investing in transport means investing in the businesses that will get us out of the recession
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: The commercial community relies upon quality transportation infrastructure to function efficiently.
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Economic stability and growth is assisted by a strong, economically viable transport network.
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: the recession will go, our public transport will remain
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Even after the recession, there will still be public transit needs
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: It will stop lazy people from driving everywhere.
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: it is the environmentally friendly thing to do
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Public transport is more green.
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: It is better for the environment.
Output: support
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: Will encourage people not to drive
Output: undermine
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: People will use alternatives to driving.
Output: undermine
claim: We should be investing in public transport.
 perspective: People will drive less.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide
Output: support
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: We shouldn't interfere with our current childbirth lottery.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: We should not disrupt our existing childbirth lottery.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided
Output: support
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Diseases of a sex-specific and generic nature are avoidable.
Output: support
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Children should not be designed to specifications
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Parents should have freedom of choice
Output: support
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Parents have the right to choose.
Output: support
claim: Parents should be able to choose the sex of their children.
 perspective: Being a parent allows for freedom of choice.
Output: support
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: Reform would never be agreed upon.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: UN reform is almost impossible to be agreed on.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: The UN needs a new approach with complete reform and replacement.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: it would be impossible to find agreement for reform
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: reform would not be agreed upon
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: :  Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved. 
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: UN is keeping its mission for peace
Output: support
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: The UN has done a great job with preventing wars 
Output: support
claim: The UN should be reformed or replaced.
 perspective: The UN does good at maintaining peace
Output: support
claim: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.
 perspective: Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies
Output: support
claim: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.
 perspective: Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations
Output: undermine
claim: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.
 perspective: Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The reasons for which the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College are no longer relevant.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.
Output: support
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The Electoral College ignores the will of the people. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The Electoral College guarantees certainty to the outcome of the presidential election.
Output: support
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college makes certain voters decline to vote.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: Voters and party builders are undermined by the electoral college.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college goes against the democratic system because it hinders party building and has a negative impact on voting.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony.
Output: support
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.
Output: support
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college violates principles of equity.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: America's electoral college should be done away with because it violates the democratic principle of equality in voting.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college is just a violation of voter equality.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes.  
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college goes against the idea that whoever earns the most votes wins.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should use the electoral college in presidential elections.
 perspective: The electoral college is just a violation of democratic principles and should be abolished.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect.
 perspective: Children can access food without their parents knowledge
Output: undermine
claim: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect.
 perspective: Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle
Output: undermine
claim: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect.
 perspective: It is possible that genes affect obesity more than personal lifestyle.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect.
 perspective: Genetics make a difference in how your body reacts to different circumstances.
Output: undermine
claim: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect.
 perspective: Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence
Output: support
claim: Personality is more important than ability.
 perspective: we can used diabled people as an example
Output: support
claim: Personality is more important than ability.
 perspective: Ability can change, personality can't.
Output: support
claim: Romeo and Juliet do promote knife crime.
 perspective: Modern teenagers do not relate to Shakespearian plays 
Output: undermine
claim: Romeo and Juliet do promote knife crime.
 perspective: Presentation of fictional events glamourises knife crime 
Output: support
claim: Romeo and Juliet do promote knife crime.
 perspective: Fiction glorifies violence.
Output: support
claim: Romeo and Juliet do promote knife crime.
 perspective:  Social learning theory supports such a correlation 
Output: support
claim: Romeo and Juliet do promote knife crime.
 perspective: It does not focus on moral condemnation of the couple but of passion of love
Output: undermine
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks
Output: support
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: Sanctions are indiscriminate
Output: undermine
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: Sanctions won't work
Output: undermine
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict
Output: support
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: Sanctions require international agreement to be effective
Output: undermine
claim: Targeted sanctions have to be used to respond to cyber-attacks.
 perspective: Sanctions are a proportionate response
Output: support
claim: Capitalism is creating an expanding gap between the rich and the poor.
 perspective: It is those who do not work who reap the rewards from those who do
Output: support
claim: Maths should be a compulsory subject at GCSE.
 perspective: Mathematics is a niche subject
Output: undermine
claim: Maths should be a compulsory subject at GCSE.
 perspective: Mathematics is pointless for the un-mathematically minded, the extreme right-brained, and the creative etc. 
Output: undermine
claim: Maths should be a compulsory subject at GCSE.
 perspective: The skills are already taught by science.
Output: undermine
claim: Maths should be a compulsory subject at GCSE.
 perspective: Maths is too wide a discipline.
Output: undermine
claim: The people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.
 perspective: The one child policy is needed for population control
Output: undermine
claim: The people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.
 perspective: Single child families are economically efficient
Output: undermine
claim: The people's republic of China should abandon the one-child policy.
 perspective: One child benefits women
Output: undermine
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Indigenous culture brings things to the table that are of benefit to society.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: We cannot understand ourselves if we cannot understand others, so protection of indigenous culture is important.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: We must learn from past mistakes and preserve displaced cultures .
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: In the past we have oppressed native peoples and we must learn from that so we do not do it again.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Government interference is not necessary to preserve culture
Output: undermine
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Wrongs must be righted where indigenous populations have been harmed.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Repair of past errors in treatment of indigenous peoples is an obligation of those who benefited.
Output: support
claim:  Aboriginal culture must be protected.
 perspective: Culture provides no tangible benefit that justifies the use of government funds to preserve it.
Output: undermine
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty
Output: undermine
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Need to protect Russian civilians
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Russian civilians need to be protected
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Russia has a need to protect civilians
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Necessary response to an illegal coup
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: It is a necessary response to an illegal coup
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: To an illegal coup is a necessary response
Output: support
claim: Russia has the right to send troops into Crimea.
 perspective: Russia should negotiate with the new government
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: ban music that glorifies crime because of the influence it has on children
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: music that glorifies crime should be banned
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: music that glorifies crime needs to be banned
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Censoring Art Is Dangerous
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: It is dangerous to censor art.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Censoring art is extremely bad.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: people are influenced by violent music
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: violent music harms families 
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: If we change violent music, we can end the violence in society.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Violence is music leads to violence in real life, so ending violent music would lessen violence in real life.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: A change is needed to stop the cycle of violence.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Harmful speech needs to be filtered
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: When harmful speech is glorified in music, it leads to bad things in real life. 
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Filtering hate speech will keep it out of the mainstream and out of our lives.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: People are justified in listening to violent music
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: People have the right to listen to whatever music they want to.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Violent music can be listened to without people going out and doing what the music says.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: A ban is necessary for progress in the status of women.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: To ban violent music against weapon is to support positive status of women in society.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Both sexes are encouraged lose respect for women when music depicts violence against women.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence against women discourages respect of women in men and women.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: The violent music encourages disrespect toward women
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Music about violence against women  doesn't help the perception of women
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.
Output: support
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: It would not be at all practical to ban music glorifying violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Banning this music that glorifies violence is totally impractical.
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: It is not realistic to expect a ban of violent music
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: everyone deserves free speech
Output: undermine
claim: Music That Glorifies Crime Should Be Banned.
 perspective: hip hop artists have a right to free speech
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Unreasonable commitment to expect of people
Output: support
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage should not be expected.
Output: support
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: This level of commitment is unreasonable to expect.
Output: support
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Expectations of people is an commitment that is unreasonable. 
Output: support
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage promotes a better way to raise children
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: It's better to raise children within a marriage.
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage is a legal contract with protections for both parties.
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage provides protection to both parties in the form of legal protection.
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage is an important institution to religious people
Output: undermine
claim: Marriage is an outdated institution.
 perspective: Marriage  is  an important religious aspect to some couples.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Britain should honour the 2016 vote
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The 2016 vote in Britain should be upheld. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Britain should implement the vote in 2016. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: A referendum could not provide the nuanced policy the UK needs
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Even though the UK needs it , a direct vote couldn't provide the subtle policy. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: A referendum couldn't produce the nuanced policy that the UK needed. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: There is no time to hold a second referendum
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: We are out of time to hold a second referedum. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: There is no time left to have a second direct vote. 
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Other countries have had second referendums 
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Other countries have had second popular votes. 
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Second referendums have been done in other countries. 
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: An in or out referendum would be legitimate.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Any referendum is legitimate in this case.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The vote will be illegitimate.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The vote won't be legitimate.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The vote would be wrongful.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: the vote will not be legitimate
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: the vote will be rendered illegitimate
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: A referendum will create a better political climate.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Referendums are good politically.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Politics are enriched by referendums.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The public have a right to a referendum.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The people have a right to hold a referendum
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Holding a referendum is a civil right.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: people have the right to a referendum
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The referendum doesn't match the UK's democratic history.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: Holding a vote would be inconsistent with the UK's democratic traditions.
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: the referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of represtative democary EU members
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: it may be inconsistent to use a referendum relative to Uk's tradition as a representative democracy eu member
Output: undermine
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The referendum is good PR for the UK.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The referendum will be good PR.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: The referendum will look good.
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: a referendum is good pr option for the UK
Output: support
claim: UK should have a second Brexit referendum before leaving the EU.
 perspective: the UK may be benefitted with good pr from a referendum
Output: support
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. 
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: Tenure provides a hierachy for experienced teachers in choosing easy or difficult assignments.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: Tenure prohibits school districts from firing experienced teachers to hire less experienced and less expensive teachers. 
Output: support
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: The formal dismissal process guaranteed by tenure protects teachers from punitive evaluation systems and premature dismissal. 
Output: support
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: Tenure is a formal dismissal process which protects teachers from punitive or premature dismissal
Output: support
claim: Teachers should get tenure.
 perspective: Teachers are protected with the formal dismissal process under tenure.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Ensures that all views are represented in political debate. 
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: This will ensure all views are represented in a political debate.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: All views can be represented in a political debate.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Referendums are very artificial. 
Output: undermine
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Referendums allow for greater validity in political outcomes.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Improves standards in political governance. 
Output: support
claim: We should encourage increased use of referendums.
 perspective: Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics. 
Output: support
claim: A nation's history and mythology is part of its national security.
 perspective: Predicting and protecting the future nation
Output: support
claim: We should give cash to the poor to reduce poverty.
 perspective: Giving money to the poor is the fairest way of eliminating poverty
Output: support
claim: We should give cash to the poor to reduce poverty.
 perspective: giving to poor prevents poverty
Output: support
claim: We should give cash to the poor to reduce poverty.
 perspective: Money cannot be targeted to meet specific needs
Output: undermine
claim: We should give cash to the poor to reduce poverty.
 perspective: money can't be good for specific needs
Output: undermine
claim: We Should Have a Quota for Women on Corporate Boards.
 perspective: Quotas are Inherently Helpful
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All 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: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament is impossible, rendering efforts to disarm pointless and simply wasteful
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, as there can never be any guarantee that a nation has disarmed
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, it is near impossible to guarantee that a nation has disarmed.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Disarmament would actually cause increased insecurity among nations, you can never really know for sure whether they have disarmed.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: The abolition of nuclear weapons would actually incentivize the development and use of even more dangerous weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the chances of nuclear accidents
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Irrational leaders make the possession of nuclear weapons dangerous
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: It is immoral to use the threat of nuclear annihilation in order to achieve foreign policy aims
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: States will give terrorists nuclear weapons
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Terrorists will steal nuclear weapons from poorly guarded arsenals
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: The nukes can end up being used against us.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: It's conceivable that the wrong people will have the weapons.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Humanitarian missions would not be possible in states that have nuclear weapons.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: It is very difficult to intercede in humanitarian crises in states wherein nuclear weapons are present.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All 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: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Other countries could strike against those developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: To keep other countries from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, other nations may pre-emptively strike.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: The intention of a state to develop nuclear weapons may incite military attacks by enemies and by other supporting countries.
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Countries with nuclear weapons have the ability to set their own agenda.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: States with nuclear weapons are afforded more authority to set agendas at international levels.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: All states have a right to nuclear self-defense.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: To use  nuclear weapons in defense of the nation is lawful for all countries.
Output: undermine
claim: Eliminate All 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: undermine
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: [Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel
Output: support
claim: Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons.
 perspective: Iran has Israel targeted.
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: It is more practical to work through one language that all Member States understand in order to ensure the effectiveness of communication.
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: we should speak one common language
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: Speaking one language that all members can understand is the best way to ensure effective communication.
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: If the EU ‘elects’ a single working language, it will be deliberately contributing to the narrow-minded, anglicising of the entire world, despite being a union of diverse cultures with the power to fight it.
Output: undermine
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: Adopting a single language would be counter-cultural.
Output: undermine
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: Electing a single language would hurt  the EU's efforts towards cultural diversity.
Output: undermine
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: One working language understood by all Member States is a more practical way of communicating often untranslatable yet vital EU-specific vocabulary.
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: One language would be best to help understand EU jargon.
Output: support
claim: The European Union should adopt a single working language through which to operate.
 perspective: Communication regarding EU jargon would benefit within the EU if one universal language was used.
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Women's sports are less popular than men's and so should get less media coverage.
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Media coverage should focus on men's sports because they are more popular than women's.
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: promote sport for future female athlese
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Encouraging future female athletes
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: More sports role models for young girls are created with increased media coverage. 
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Young girls are given more role models for participating in sports with increased media coverage.
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: This could simply swap inequalities around
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Destroying the pleasure of watching certain sports
Output: undermine
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: stop discrimination in sport
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: discrimination in sport should be removed
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view. 
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Preventing discrimination in sport
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Athletes should decide for themselves.
Output: support
claim: Force the media to display, promote and report women’s sport equally to men’s sport.
 perspective: Athletes should be able to make their own decisions.
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: Religious symbols harm no one
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: symbols for religious benefit bothers no one
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: religious expression should be freely decided
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: It is a fundamental right  to practice the religion you wish.
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: Practicing your religion is a right, not a priveledge. 
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: Human rights demand that we are free to express our religion.
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: Religious expression needs to be guaranteed for all of us as part of our most fundamental rights!
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: It is a fundamental part of OUR Human Rights
Output: support
claim: We should be free to express our religion as we wish.
 perspective: It is politically incorrect
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship outperforms democracy in growth and economic develpment
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Democracies can't mobilize a country as fast as a dictatorship can.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: In order to develop quickly, a dictator must be in power to sped things up.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: The loger lasting and biggest economic miracles  have ocurred under dictatorships
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: A dictatorship breeds order and it's a needed step for both development and liberal democracy
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships breed development and liberal democracy.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Breeding of development and liberal democracy under dictatorial rule. 
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Development occurs when a dictatorship revert into democracy
Output: undermine