niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Earning college education is always a worthwhile investment. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Learning is always worthwhile.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Learning will always pay off. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Learning and education is always a good investment. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Many recent college graduates are un- or underemployed.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: In recent times, there are significant numbers of unemployed and underemployed college graduates. 
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Among those who are unemployed and underemployed, there are many college graduates. 
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Colleges provide networking value.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Going to college provides many opportunities to network. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: A college degree is no guarantee of workplace benefits.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: There is no guarantee there will be benefits.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Learning a trade profession is a better option than college for many young adults.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Young adults should consider learning a trade instead of going to college.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Trade professions are in need of more individuals and it may be more profitable than going to college.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College graduates are healthier and live longer.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Health and longevity are associated with graduating from a college.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College is an investment in health and longevity.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College graduates attract higher-paying employers to their communities.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Employers are attracted to locales with college graduates. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: The more college graduates in one geographical area, the more higher-paying employers will be found
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College allows students to explore career options.
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Attending college affords great chances to check out career options. 
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: The total cost of going to college also includes the cost of missing opportunities to make money at a job.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College stress can lead to health problems and other negative consequences.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: College degrees do not guarantee learning or job preparation.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Acquiring a degree does not guarantee you a job.
Output: undermine
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: We must retain a respect for academia
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: University education gives people something to aim for
Output: support
claim:  College education is worth it.
 perspective: Universities don’t have unlimited places available
Output: undermine
claim: Accessing your spouse’s email account hacking.
 perspective: Getting married is supposed to involve sharing your life with somebody
Output: support
claim: Accessing your spouse’s email account hacking.
 perspective: Marriage means an  a voluntary equal sharing of your life with your partner.
Output: support
claim: Accessing your spouse’s email account hacking.
 perspective: In marriage, both members of the couple should be willing to share their lives.
Output: support
claim: Taxes on smoothies and fruit juices should be reduced.
 perspective: Removing VAT would increase sales of healthy drinks
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Capitalism replaced Socialism because it's the better system.
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism died out, making way for Capitalism.
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism can be molded to fit the needs of the moment. 
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism is a an ever changing set of principles that can be applied in new ways to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: socialism have changed and adapted to meet the upcoming challenges of the 21st century
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism is no longer seen as a viable option and even the Left has accepted that Capitalism is a better system.
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Capitalist principles are now being seen as a better option than Socialism even by the leaders of the Left. 
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: even left side leaders have accepted capitalism pirnciples and have given up on socialism as a creed
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Even the left fielders are now accepting capitalist principles over socialism in term of real way of life
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole
Output: support
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Socialism outranks capitalism in security.
Output: undermine
claim: Socialism is Dead.
 perspective: Capitalism is less secure than socialist systems. 
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: It is a moral imperative to constantly seek to expand the boundaries of knowledge
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Space exploration leads to technological advancement
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: there are other issues to worry about
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Space exploration is too expensive to have many positive benefits.
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: While there are some benefits,  space exploration has too high a cost
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Nationalistic sentiment and antagonism are fueled by the 'space race.'
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Nationalistic sentiment (and antagonism) is powered by the space race.
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to explore the universe.
 perspective: Space exploration has improved communications on Earth
Output: support
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC does not have enough checks on prosecutorial powers, inviting prosecutorial abuse.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The prosecutorial abuse potential is high, due to its lack of checks on its power.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC needs more checks on its prosecutorial authority in order preclude abuse of power.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC is not democratic in nature and is likely to be used as a political tool by powerful nations.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The EU has a high potential to be used as a political ploy as it is not known for its democracy.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC is mainly not a democratic institution, thereby allowing for political malfeasance.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC interferes with national operations (both military and humanitarian) because of how loosely the Rome Statue can be interpreted.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC impedes a nation's core operations as as Rome Statue is not rigid in its interpretation
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The Rome Statute of the ICC hinders national operations due to its wide flexibility.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC infringes upon national sovereignty by inherently implying that there is a higher court nations must answer to.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC's criminal court marginalizes individual national courts.
Output: undermine
claim: The International Criminal Court is a force for good.
 perspective: The ICC messes up national independence by marginalizing individual member courts.
Output: undermine
claim: Governments Should Pay Compensation For Terrorist Atrocities Carried Out By Their Citizens.
 perspective: Set up an international fund to pay compensation 
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Pay Compensation For Terrorist Atrocities Carried Out By Their Citizens.
 perspective: Governments in countries where terrorism is prevalent should allocate tax dollars to a pool to compensate nations that have been victims.
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Pay Compensation For Terrorist Atrocities Carried Out By Their Citizens.
 perspective: The UN should allocate a fund to compensate nations that have been victims of terrorism.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Policing and financing the system is unmanageable
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: It would be extremely difficult to police and finance mandatory voting.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: It is unreasonable to expect that compulsory voting could be financed and verified.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Voting is a civic duty
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: A true democratic mandate for the government
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Voting is the duty of every individual in a democratic society.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: It is the duty of every citizen to vote.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Disadvantage groups are better represented when voting in mandatory.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: By making voting mandatory, disadvantaged groups improve their representation.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: It will cause more people to become interested in politics
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Cause more people to become interested in politics
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: There is precedent to compulsory voting working.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Other places have successfully introduced compulsory voting.
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: It will reduce the power of special interest groups
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Convincing is more effective than forcing.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: You can persuade to vote but you can't force someone to do it.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: People rebel from rules and do what they want anyway
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: People forced to vote are unlikely to vote intelligently.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: If people are forced to vote, they will not have the information needed to vote intelligently.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 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 become compulsory.
 perspective: It's a model that works
Output: support
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: The right not to vote
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Democracy is based on the freedom to vote or not.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: People can only make free choices if they want to, not because the state makes them
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Why should anyone bother to vote when politicians do whatever they want?
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Once elected, politicians do what they want, so why vote?
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Voting does not make sense as a rewardable/punishable action.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Rewarding or punishing someone for voting is nonsensical.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Voting should be neither rewarded or punished.
Output: undermine
claim: Voting should become compulsory.
 perspective: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution
Output: undermine
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: Reducing speed reduces deaths
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: slower speeds prevent death
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: the slower the speed, the less death
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: By reducing speeds, you can also reduce deaths
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: With reduced speed comes reduced deaths
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: Negative impact on the environment 
Output: support
claim: Speed limits should be reduced.
 perspective: High tax on cars is not value for money if you have to drive at a snail's pace
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Students should be educated to make healthy dietary choices.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: schools should educate on health
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Students should not be forbidden from eating certain foods, they should be educated about them.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: schools should educate the masses on healthy choices
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Better nutrition leads to better students.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Good food is better for students
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Good food helps create better students
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Better nutrition leads to more productive students.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Better nutrition leads to a better student body. 
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: A healthy diet starts from home and starts early. 
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools are the best at changing lifestyles
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools set the foundation for life
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools are the best place to create lasting positive habits. 
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Schools are the best place to implement long lasting lifestyle changes. 
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Habits Are Often Formed During Childhood And It's Important To Ensure That Kids Eat A Healthy Diet In School
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Bans On Junk Food Have Been Successful
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Start your children early on the habit of  good healthy food and it will stay with them throughout their lives.  
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools. 
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: If "junk food" is banned, students will simply bring their own food to school.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Banning "junk food" is not the answer because then students will simply bring their own "junk food" from home.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: “Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools. 
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: The sale of "junk food" items provide vital financial assistance to schools.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: "Junk food" revenues provide schools with much needed financial assistance.
Output: undermine
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Junk Food Can Increase The Risk Of Diabetes
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Eating junk food can make it more likely to receive a diagnosis of diabetes.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Junk Food Can Cause Obesity
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Eating junk food leads to obesity.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Obesity is caused by junk food.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Unhealthy Food May Be Bad For Brain Function
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Junk food can hinder the brain's performance.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Brain function is inhibited by unhealthy foods.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Banning Junk Food In Schools Could Decrease The Frequency Of Heart Disease
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Heart disease can be caused by junk food.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: The frequency of heart disease in schools could be lowered by banning junk food.
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Junk Food Can Have Negative Affects On Bone Health
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Eating junk food can be detrimental to bone health. 
Output: support
claim: Ban junk food from schools.
 perspective: Junk food has been associated with poor bone health. 
Output: support
claim: Throw Russia out of the G8.
 perspective: The biggest action the west can take without sanctions
Output: support
claim: Throw Russia out of the G8.
 perspective: Simply narrows the G8 making it irrelevant
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: It is hypocritical and will not benefit civilians
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Innocent people are always going to be a factor in arming a police force.
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Arming the police will cause an escalation in criminal violence
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: If the police are not armed, only the bad guys will have guns.
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Arming the police makes communities feel safer
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Everyone saw the extent of damage caused several years ago when the Hollywood, CA police department was completely outgunned.  The police had to break into a gun store to get better fire power.  Many lives could have been saved if they had the proper fire power in the first place.
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Arming the police is a necessary step
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: It is never a good idea when the police force is out gunned by the criminals.
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: One of the first principals of defense is to have superior resources.  
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems
Output: support
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Arming the police does not deal with the causes underlying violence
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Just because police have weapons, it doesn't mean the main issues of violence are being dealt with.
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: arming police will not help
Output: undermine
claim: Arming the police is a good idea.
 perspective: Arming the police will do more harm than good
Output: undermine
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science can't produce faith.
Output: undermine
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science can produce practical solutions and propose new policies to improve overall happiness.
Output: support
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science can measure and analyse the effect of certain moral behaviour on others.
Output: support
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science shouldn't be prescribing what we do.
Output: undermine
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science can't have a spiritual aspect.
Output: undermine
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Spirituality has no place in science.
Output: undermine
claim: Science can determine human values.
 perspective: Science and spirituality do not go hand in hand. 
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: It’s impossible to police such a law.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: The police cannot enforce the law.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Regulating arranges marriages in EU countries would be impossible.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: It would be impossible to enforce a ban on arranged marriages in EU countries.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: The state should not regulate such personal matters. 
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Personal matters should not be regulated by the state
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Arranged marriages remains a personal choices and as such shouldn't be banned by the state.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted. 
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: To ban arranged marriages in EU countries would initiate resentment from certain communities.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Several communities in EU countries would feel targeted and begin to resent authorities should arranged marriages be banned.
Output: undermine
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important
Output: support
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: The ban will give powers to police to crack down on the murky underworld of forced marriages
Output: support
claim: Arranged marriages in EU countries should be banned.
 perspective: Forced marriage is a barrier to integration
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: Life after death is strongly stated in the bible.
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: The bible states that there is life after death.
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: There is with certainty a Heaven and Hell.
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: There is a Heaven and there is a Hell.
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: yes there is a heaven and a hell
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: My strong belief is that Heaven and Hell exist.
Output: support
claim: There is life after death.
 perspective: There definitely exists a Heaven and Hell.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: The American public overwhelmingly supports MLDA 21.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: State governments should have the right to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering MLDA 21 to 18 will irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering the drinking age would allow younger people to go to more unsafe places.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: they drink anyway why not let them do it legaly
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: MLDA 21 is largely ineffective because teens consume regardless.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Kids will drink when they want, making it legal will reduce petty crimes.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Kids aren't waiting until 21 now, they already don't care about the law.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: The MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering the drinking age is a bad idea.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: MLDA 21 exerts valuable social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering MLDA 21 would give high schoolers and even middle schoolers easier access to alcohol.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering MLDA 21 would be good for the economy.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: MLDA 18 is not a right. 
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: It is not a right to drink when you are 18 years old.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Young adults drinking could cause more problems in the future
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: If you can fight for your country in Iraq, why can't you have a beer?
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: If you can die for your country, you should be trusted to drink. 
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: The drinking age should be 21 years of age.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: 21 years old should be the drinking age.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: People can not be allowed to drink until they are 21.
Output: undermine
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Young adults in college won't get in trouble with the law
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering the age will cut down on young adults drinking
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Lowering the age to drink will make it less interesting since everyone can do it.
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Use reverse psychology on kids to remove the appeal of drinking. 
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: If you can drive a lethal weapon (moterized vehicle) why cant you drink?
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: you can vote at 18 why cant you drink?
Output: support
claim: The drinking age should be lowered from 21 to a younger age.
 perspective: Being an adult at 18 should be all encompassing across society, including drinking.
Output: support
claim: College football should replace the bowl championship series (BCS).
 perspective: The proposed playoff system alternatives are actually less fair than the BCS system in place.
Output: undermine
claim: College football should replace the bowl championship series (BCS).
 perspective: The BCS rankings are designed to favor consistency over the course of the entire season.
Output: undermine
claim: College football should replace the bowl championship series (BCS).
 perspective: A playoff system would not mean the end of the BCS rankings, which could still be used to determine the top 4, 8, 12, or 16 teams, depending on how many playoff games are feasible.
Output: support
claim: All drugs should be decriminalised.
 perspective: In addition to our first argument: There is no legal bar on the purchase of alcoholic drink and cigarettes, though both are often addictive 
Output: support
claim: All drugs should be decriminalised.
 perspective: In addition to our fourth argument: Decriminilisation of drugs will diminish organised crime 
Output: support
claim: All drugs should be decriminalised.
 perspective:  Decriminilisation of drugs will diminish organised crime 
Output: support
claim: All drugs should be decriminalised.
 perspective: In addition to our third argument:  Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else
Output: support
claim: All drugs should be decriminalised.
 perspective: Individuals should be free to do whatever they like with themselves as long as this harms no one else
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Government pension schemes are not a viable or sustainable option.
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: senior citizens should not and cannot be exposed to such naked risk on moral grounds
Output: undermine
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Private Enterprise is more suited to long-term planning and sustainability
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Private Enterprise demonstrates a greater capacity for dealing with long term planning and viable continuity over time.
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Private Business is more inclined towards future planning and sustainability.
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: State involvement in pensions is deleterious to both pensioners and the state.
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Government is fundamentally unsuited to running pension schemes.
Output: support
claim: Pensions should be privatised.
 perspective: Historical evidence has shown that privatisation has been unsuccessful
Output: undermine
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Monitoring children's use of electronics raises digital awareness.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Children's internet use should be monitored.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography. 
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Parents can determine which websites children visit.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: It should be acceptable for parents to prevent children from visiting pornographic websites. 
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Cyberbullying may be reduced by parents' monitoring children's online communications. 
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time. 
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Parents can monitor whether children are use time online effectively.
Output: support
claim: Parents have to be allowed to monitor their children's online and mobile communications.
 perspective: Parents can make sure children aren't wasting their time online. 
Output: support
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The National Curriculum sets standards for the Teaching Learning Programme
Output: undermine
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The National Curriculum does not provide personalised learning since it is an instrument of mass instruction.
Output: support
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The National Curriculum is the product of a factory system designed for a world that no longer exists.
Output: support
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The national curriculum is capable of substantial improvement
Output: undermine
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The National Curriculum has stifled creativity (the generation of ideas) and innovation (the addition of value).
Output: support
claim: The national curriculum should be scrapped.
 perspective: The National Curriculum provides reference points of achievement for parents and government.
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: No one will ever actually look at the information
Output: support
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Lack of trust
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: There is no trust
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Trust is missing.
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: There are safeguards to prevent misuse
Output: support
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: The use of meta data causes unintentional harm
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Agencies use surveillance to abuse their power.
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Loss of Privacy
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: People will lose their privacy.
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: Privacy will go away.
Output: undermine
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: information gathered used to fight terrorism
Output: support
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: information gathered  can be used to fight terrorism .
Output: support
claim: You have nothing to worry about surveillance if you have done nothing wrong.
 perspective: information gathered can be used to fight against radical terrorists. 
Output: support
claim: Institute a mandatory retirement age.
 perspective: Western workers are remaining healthier for longer
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras invade the privacy of citizens, expose victims and witnesses of crimes, and damage police-public relationships.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: What risks are there to individuals if police wear body cameras.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Explanation of police body camera effects.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras improve police accountability and protect officers from false accusations of misconduct
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police Body Cameras allow true facts to come out in alleged cases of Police misconduct
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police officers are more accountable when wearing body cameras
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras are too expensive and are unreliable.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras increase the safety of the public and the police
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police Body Cameras ensure safer interactions between the Police and the public
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras decrease the safety of police officers and negatively affect their physical and mental health.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: What are the negative effects of police body cameras.
Output: undermine
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Police body cameras are a good tool for learning and have strong support from members of the public.
Output: support
claim: Police body cameras should be allowed.
 perspective: Will police body cameras teach police anything.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent video games desensitise users
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent games normalizes forms of violence.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Restrictions would be ineffective
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Restricting video games only makes people more interested in them. 
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Restricting violent video games will have no correlation to a reduction in societal crime.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Playing violent video games leads to violent behaviors.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: people immitate video games.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: violent games make people agressive.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: In order to maintan a well funcitoning society, the government has a right to restrict violent games which could hurt people.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Video games are content that has a right to be censored for the mass majority's public safety.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: The Responsibility Lies With Parents
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent video games lead to inappropriate social interactions.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent video games are detrimental to social interaction.
Output: support
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Countries with high video game use see less gun violence
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and "prosocial” behaviors.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent video games have been shown to have positive effect on kindness and cooperative behavior.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: There are many flaws to the theory that violent video games cause real life violence.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.
Output: undermine
claim: We should restrict violent video games.
 perspective: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings.
Output: undermine
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls
Output: undermine
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Blood sports are not justified by their role in pest control or conservation.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: The need for pest control or conservation does not justify blood sports. 
Output: support