niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The embargo enables the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The people of Cuba are the victims of the embargo, opposed the intended target of the government.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuban citizens are paying the price for their government's actions.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The casualties of the embargo are the civilians of Cuba, not the government as ideal.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The embargo harms the people of Cuba, not the government as intended. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Sanctions harm the Cuban people. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The United States should not have different trading and travel policies for Cuba than for other countries with governments or policies it opposes. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cubans can't join the digital era while under embargo due to lack of electronic access.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The United States should maintain the Cuba embargo because Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Ending the embargo before the Cuban government meets the conditions specified by US law would make the United States look weak. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The embargo is a relic of Cold War Era thinking and is unnecessary because Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The Cuba embargo is a product of Cold War Era mentality thus obsolete for Cuba is not a threat to the US.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba should be subject to sanctions because it is known to have repeatedly supported acts of terrorism. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba is knows to sponsor terrorism so sanctions are appropriate.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Because Cuba supports terrorism, it should have sanctions levvied against it.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The United States is able to target the Cuban government with its embargo while still providing assistance to Cuban citizens. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The embargo should be maintained because open travel is insufficient to promote change in Cuba; many democratic countries already allow travel to Cuba with no results. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The embargo must be upheld as others have allowed open travel with no results.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Open travel to Cuba has not yielded change so the embargo should continue.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Lifting the embargo would put pressure on Cuba to address problems that it had previously blamed on US sanctions. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Sanctions are not working
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The Cuban government is unaffected by the sanctions.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Where the people and not the government shoulder the burden, sanctions don't work.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The United States should end the Cuba embargo because its 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: After 50 years the Cuba embargo has shown no results so the US should end it.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The Cuba embargo has failed to achieve its goal after 50 years so the US should end it.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Most of the world opposes the embargo, and maintaining it is detrimental to the reputation of the United States among the international community. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Maintaining a widely-reviled embargo damages the US's diplomatic reputation.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The global community opposes the embargo, and maintaining it hurts the US diplomatically.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The Cuban government has consistently responded to US attempts to soften the embargo with acts of aggression, raising concerns about what would happen if the sanctions were fully lifted. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Free trade, not the isolation of an embargo, can promote democracy in Cuba. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Free trade in lieu of embargo can promote Cuban democracy.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Instead of embargo, free trade will promote democracy in Cuba.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The uncertainty over who will succeed Raúl Castro makes it unwise for the United States to change its policy before a new leader is in place. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: There is no definitive replacement for Raul Castro, which makes it unwise for the US to implement new policies at this time.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Until the US knows who will replace Raul Castro, it does not make sense to put new policies in place.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba has not demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the United States. 
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba seems unwilling to negotiate with the US.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba seems reluctant to genuinely engage with the US.
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Sanctions are necessary for national security
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The national well-being is best served by the continuation of economic sanctions against Cuba
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Cuba deserves sanctions
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Economic punishment is what Cuba should be subject to
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: The actions of the Cuban government have merited the Cuban government economic penalty
Output: support
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: Economic benefits of ending sanctions
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should maintain its embargo against Cuba.
 perspective: If sanctions were lifted trade benefits would flow to all parties to trade.
Output: undermine
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: Christianity may be a deception but it's not the "greatest" one
Output: support
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: There are greater deceptions than Christianity.
Output: support
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: There are a great many of deceptions in the world today that are bigger than Christianity.
Output: support
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: It isn't christianity that's the deception, organised religion is!
Output: undermine
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: Christianity is not a deception!
Output: undermine
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: Christianity is not a lie!
Output: undermine
claim: Christianity is the greatest deception of today.
 perspective: Christianity is not dishonest!
Output: undermine
claim: The Reproductive Health Bill will undermine families and values.
 perspective: Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare
Output: undermine
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Better governance due to transparency
Output: support
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Respect of Human Rights
Output: support
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Respect for the rights of other humans.
Output: support
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Respect for the rights of people.
Output: support
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Electorate is not motivated
Output: undermine
claim: Democracy Is the Best Form of Government.
 perspective: Peace can only be achieved only through a well functioning democracy
Output: support
claim: People should have the right to die.
 perspective: Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.
Output: support
claim: People should have the right to die.
 perspective: Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.
Output: support
claim: People should have the right to die.
 perspective: The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.
Output: undermine
claim: People should have the right to die.
 perspective: The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.
Output: support
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: Livestock production threatens the world’s water supply
Output: support
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: Excessive meat production threatens the world’s biodiversity
Output: support
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: A special EU wide tax on meat consumption would reduce the threat to the planet
Output: support
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: The UN disagrees.
Output: undermine
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: The UN does not think a meat consumption tax is worth it.
Output: undermine
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: The UN is in disagreement with the EU and does not want to see a Europe-wide tax on meat consumption as a plant-saving measure.
Output: undermine
claim: The EU should impose a special Europe-wide tax on meat consumption to help save the planet.
 perspective: The United Nations does not agree with the EU and does not feel that a meat consumption tax would have the effects desired.
Output: undermine
claim: Religious freedom abroad should be one of the primary foreign policy concerns for any country.
 perspective: Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict
Output: undermine
claim: Religious freedom abroad should be one of the primary foreign policy concerns for any country.
 perspective: Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict
Output: support
claim: Religious freedom abroad should be one of the primary foreign policy concerns for any country.
 perspective: Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society
Output: support
claim: Religious freedom abroad should be one of the primary foreign policy concerns for any country.
 perspective: Religious pluralism enables a more blended and inclusive society.
Output: support
claim: Religious freedom abroad should be one of the primary foreign policy concerns for any country.
 perspective: Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: The money is not going towards a good cause
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: The Olympics gives athletes a goal and young people a chance to believe in themselves
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: bidding takes a long time
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: the bidding process is long
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: The large investment needed to host the olympics will have outstanding economic rewards.
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: The economy will benefit largely from the amount of people they hosting the olympics will bring.
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting is good for economy
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective:  Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a le
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: the london olympics are expensive 
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: the Olympics in London are expensive
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting only affects one city
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting is very expensive
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Even though hosting the olympics is very expensive it is worth the effort.
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting costs a lot
Output: undermine
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting the Olympics will bring revenue to surrounding areas as people flock to the games.
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting the Olympics may require an investment of resources but the localities will reap the rewards.
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: If a nation hosts the Olympics, it will give new life to the local economy.
Output: support
claim: The money we spend on our Olympic medal count is money well spent.
 perspective: Hosting the Olympics has a positive impact on local areas.
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: People have a right to know where their information comes from
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: People should know where information came from. 
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Disclosure should be require initially by law. 
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: By law disclosure should be discussed at the start.
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: A dangerous precedent is set when you regulate think tanks.
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Private investors have a right to privacy
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Privacy is a right to private investors.
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: The right to privacy includes private investors.
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Think tanks do not need to know where their funding is from.
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: It is not neccesary for think tanks to know who funds them.
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Crime groups use think tanks to confuse people.
Output: support
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Think tanks should be assessed by the value of their ideas, not by who funds them
Output: undermine
claim: Force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding.
 perspective: Who funds a think tank is unimportant to the value of their ideas.
Output: undermine
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions
Output: support
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: The rich are now also deterred
Output: support
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: Creates the perception that fines are like taxes, rather than a punishment
Output: undermine
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: A flat rate is more just
Output: undermine
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: It is unfair to penalize a higher income with a larger fine.
Output: undermine
claim: Fines should be made relative to income.
 perspective: Fines should be according to crime, not income.
Output: undermine
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: We need more universities as the population is growing!
Output: undermine
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: Selective education leads to an unfair bias towards the rich and the middle classes
Output: undermine
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: Wide university education produces a literate, multi-skilled and widely knowledgeable nation
Output: undermine
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: Many don't 'use' their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt
Output: support
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: Many don’t ‘use’ their degree after graduating, yet still end up in huge debt
Output: support
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: With so many new universities and colleges, employers can't tell the difference between the good and bad.
Output: support
claim: University education needs to be capped and more selective.
 perspective: A university degree has far less worth than it once did
Output: support
claim: The iPhone is better than the Blackberry.
 perspective: iPhone is great tech.
Output: support
claim: The iPhone is better than the Blackberry.
 perspective: The IPhone has more features
Output: support
claim: The iPhone is better than the Blackberry.
 perspective: Apple has a winner with iPhone, much better features than the Blackberry.
Output: support
claim: The iPhone is better than the Blackberry.
 perspective: Blackberries are best for teens and up 
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Sanctions give rise to a whole new set of problems
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Sanctions only cause more problems.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: The implementation of sanctions cause unforeseen problems.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Sanctions are the most effective response to an urgent crisis.
Output: support
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Urgent crisises are best responded to with sanctions.
Output: support
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Sanctions are the fastest and most effective measures when a crisis is urgent.
Output: support
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: [Response to rebuttal] Sanctions are the most effective response to an urgent crisis.
Output: support
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: The most effective response to a true crisis is the implementation of sanctions.
Output: support
claim: The UN should impose sanctions on countries that destroy their rainforests.
 perspective: Sanctions are the most effective manner in which to respond to a real crisis.
Output: support
claim: Poverty is the most important security issue facing Africa.
 perspective: Poverty creates a vicious circle
Output: support
claim: Poverty is the most important security issue facing Africa.
 perspective: people in poverty usually never get out
Output: support
claim: Poverty is the most important security issue facing Africa.
 perspective: Poor states have trouble providing security
Output: support
claim: Poverty is the most important security issue facing Africa.
 perspective: a state in financial trouble can not provide proper security
Output: support
claim: Poverty is the most important security issue facing Africa.
 perspective: a state needs to be secure to provide its people with sercurity
Output: support
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: If the courts did not handle these issues, the mob likely would.
Output: undermine
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: Citizens will take matters into their own hands. 
Output: undermine
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: If the courts did not handle the issues, then the mob would
Output: undermine
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: If the courts did not do it, then the mob would
Output: undermine
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: People have a right to blaspheme
Output: support
claim: Blasphemy has no place on the statute books.
 perspective: Blasphemy causes offence to groups and individuals
Output: undermine
claim: Discipline In Schools Needs To Be Improved.
 perspective: the majority of people respond to discipline
Output: support
claim: The United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon.
 perspective: The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon.
 perspective: The United States is a de facto empire.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon.
 perspective: In reality, the United States is an empire, not a hegemon.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon.
 perspective: The US is less of a hegemon and more of an imperial empire
Output: undermine
claim: The United States is a ‘benign’ hegemon.
 perspective: The US is more like an imperial power and less like a hegemon
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The economic case for expansion does not add up
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The economic case for expansion is not good
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The case for economic expansion is not sound
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The economic argument made for expansion is not a compelling one.
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The economic reasons given for expansion are hardly persuasive.
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The third run way would cause issues
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: The third run way would not be good
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: Any runway beyond the existing two would give rise to problems, including noise and pollution.
Output: undermine
claim: Build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport.
 perspective: An additional runway would inevitably lead to pollution and noise issues. 
Output: undermine
claim: Eritrea is responsible for its isolation.
 perspective: Eritrea is surrounded by hostile nations 
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Peace may finally be at hand
Output: support
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: The violence may have finally stopped bringing peace to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Output: support
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: UN intervention may have finally stopped the conflict. 
Output: support
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Peace may be near
Output: support
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Even though the UN has reported success in the Democratic Republic of Congo, there have been disturbing allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers in the area.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Allegations of misconduct has darkened the reports of success by the UN.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Resources still flow out of the country
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: Even though it has seen some success, the UN hasn't stopped the rush of resources leaving the country.
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: resources still flow out
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: resources flow out still
Output: undermine
claim: The UN intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a success.
 perspective: The government is not in control
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: YES, give them the rights they deserve!
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Sixteen years would be a better option in developed countries
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: I think they should have these rights.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: I would say give them the rights that they should have.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Minor's interests can be appropriately taken into consideration by the votes of their parents.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: A parent's vote should be counted as a vote in the interest of their child.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Voting at a lower age would increase participation
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: More citizens would participate if the voting age were lowered.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: A lower voting age would result in an increase in participation.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Younger people are more likely to not take the impact of their vote seriously.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Allowing young people to vote would be likely to result in inappropriate votes.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 year olds are mature enough to vote
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 year olds are informed enough to cast a vote.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: It is appropriate for 16 year olds to have the right to vote.
Output: support
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: At sixteen there is a lack of maturity that is necessary to vote responsibly.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 year olds don't have a high enough level of maturity to vote.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 years old is too much of an immature age to vote.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: children at 16 have no sense of decesion making
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: No. too immature.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Sixteen is too young to make decisions.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: At sixteen the brain is not developed enough to make decisions.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 year olds are not responsible enough to vote. 
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: 16 year olds are not wise enough to vote at elections.
Output: undermine
claim: The voting age should be lowered to 16.
 perspective: Sixteen year olds are too immature to judge the validity of political arguments.
Output: undermine
claim: Reheat tea in the microwave.
 perspective: Reheating is 5 times better for the environment
Output: support
claim: Reheat tea in the microwave.
 perspective: Reusing, reheating tea using the stove is environmentally unsound.
Output: support
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity. 
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Banning toys in fast food meals will not create healthier food choices.
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Such bans are easy to side step. 
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: There are alternative methods of distributing the toys.
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: A variant means to sell the toys separately can be used as an incentive for future food discounts.
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Bad nutrition habits start during childhood. 
Output: support
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.
Output: support
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Advertising should not be allowed to seduce vulnerable children who do not understand what they want.
Output: support
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Governemnt needs more power over fast food advertising to force children to make the correct choices about their food.
Output: support
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Its a business, a business doing its job
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: Advertising is a part of a good business plan. 
Output: undermine
claim: The sale of children’s toys as part of fast food meals must be prohobited.
 perspective: A good business needs to look to promote its mission. 
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers should get merit pay.
 perspective: A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards.
Output: support
claim: During riots it might make sense to block access to social messaging networks.
 perspective: Social networks serve as a powerful signalling device for the expansion of violent behaviour
Output: support
claim: During riots it might make sense to block access to social messaging networks.
 perspective: It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using
Output: undermine
claim: During riots it might make sense to block access to social messaging networks.
 perspective: Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force
Output: support
claim: During riots it might make sense to block access to social messaging networks.
 perspective: Would stop riots from spreading
Output: support
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Positive association with alcohol
Output: support
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Young adults drinking could cause more problems in the future
Output: undermine
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity.
Output: support
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Lowering the age will cut down on young adults drinking
Output: support
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Lowering the age to drink will make it less interesting since everyone can do it.
Output: support
claim: Parents should introduce children to alcohol (in moderation) at an early age.
 perspective: Use reverse psychology on kids to remove the appeal of drinking. 
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: The focus of elections should be on policy, not personal issues like financial records
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Financial records are personal, not political, issues.
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Political candidates should focus on policy and not be subjected to scrutinization of their financial records.
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Forcing candidates to post their full financial history violates their privacy.
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Political candidates' rights would be violated if they were forced to post their financial records online.
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: By releasing financial info, a candidate shows his honesty
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: By releasing financial info, a candidate shows his openess and willingness to comply
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Candidates' willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules can be indicated by financial dealings.
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Financial dealings can tell a candidates' willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules.
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Voters have a right to know the background of their would-be representatives, including financial background
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Every one running for office must show their tax returns
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Running for office should make your life an open book
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Voters deserve to know the background including financial background of their would-be representatives.
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: The would-be representatives should disclose their complete background including financial background to the voters who have a right to know.
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Too much focus on candidates' finances only leads to class wars. 
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Candidates posting their full financial history online would only intensify class wars.
Output: undermine
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Candidates' full financial history allows voters to consider the financial proposals candidates may offer as potential policy.
Output: support
claim: The full financial history of all candidates for political office must be posted online.
 perspective: Political candidates' full financial history offers valuable texture with regard to potential financial policies candidates may offer.
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The American Job Acts came in handy for the people that are unemployed for a long time,
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses
Output: undermine
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The Jobs Act balances between having money and having no money.
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The American Jobs Act is good for the economy
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: Creation of job is central the the American Jobs Act
Output: support
claim: The American Jobs Act should pass.
 perspective: The American Jobs Act is Not Deficit Neutral
Output: undermine
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Pre-nuptial agreements conditions differ from future reality
Output: support
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: The State imposed system is not objectively right for everybody
Output: support
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Prenuptial agreements should not be recognized in divorce courts
Output: support
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Pre-nuptial agreements reduce trauma associated with divorce
Output: undermine
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Pre-nuptial agreements increase security
Output: undermine
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Liberty to decide what you want is good and because pre-nuptial agreements can be considered rational decisions
Output: undermine
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Pre-nuptial agreements constitutes a serious chance of abuse
Output: support
claim: Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognised in divorce courts.
 perspective: Prenuptial agreements are either too lovely or not as lovely as they appear
Output: support
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: Hacks to improve a product.
Output: support
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: Stealing and invading privacy is fundamentally wrong.
Output: undermine
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: Hacks as artistic expression.
Output: support
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: Hacks always negatively affect someone.
Output: undermine
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: Hacks as political statements.
Output: support
claim: Hacking Can Be Justified.
 perspective: 5. Hacks to uncover or expose criminal activity, corruption or corporate malpractice
Output: support
claim: Downloading music without permission is morally equivalent to theft.
 perspective: A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value
Output: support
claim: Downloading music without permission is morally equivalent to theft.
 perspective: Downloaders spend more on music
Output: undermine
claim: Downloading music without permission is morally equivalent to theft.
 perspective: It is well know that people that download also purchase the most.
Output: undermine
claim: Downloading music without permission is morally equivalent to theft.
 perspective: Downloads are also big spenders.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: people immitate video games.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: violent games make people agressive.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Playing violent video games leads to violent behaviors.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: real life violent behaviors may be stimulated by video games
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video games are seen as a risk factor for aggressive behavior, according to the American Psychological Association (APA)
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Countries with high video game use see less gun violence
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and "prosocial” behaviors.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video games have been shown to have positive effect on kindness and cooperative behavior.
Output: undermine