niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Democracy lets a country grow naturaly
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships have a flexibility in economic policy that breeds growth
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictators have incentives to promote development and diminish social differences
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictator’s decisions undermines the people and are unaccountable
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships regimes can be a path for countries move on from civil wars and focus on development
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorial regimes can move countries from civil wars toward development.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship is a threat to diversity and multi ethnicity
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Imposing dictatorship will be a threat to diversity and multi ethnicity. 
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship will stop all path of development in a democratic country 
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships better control the variables of human development
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship brings profit to dictators and its clique, but not to the citizens
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships breed development though efficient and straighfoward decision making
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Social stability through the use of dictatorships.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships can prevent social unrest
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Society is put at ease when everyone is as equally under the thumb of the dictator as everyone else.
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship helps achieve social stability
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorship is a good breeding ground for personal discipline and order
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Democracy acts in the interest of the general population, which is good for development
Output: undermine
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships assure low cost political stability
Output: support
claim: Dictatorship Is the Best Path to Development.
 perspective: Dictatorships offer political stability by eliminating competition.
Output: support
claim: Job applicants should have to disclose their spent criminal convictions.
 perspective: Provision of care services requires such disclosure
Output: support
claim: Job applicants should have to disclose their spent criminal convictions.
 perspective: In order to provide care for employees, they must disclose their criminal history.
Output: support
claim: Job applicants should have to disclose their spent criminal convictions.
 perspective: Employees should be required to submit their criminal history in order to receive care services.
Output: support
claim: Job applicants should have to disclose their spent criminal convictions.
 perspective: When applying for jobs, it's important that former felons disclose their records.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: The financial support required to further develop wind technology would be better deployed in more consistent  processes such as geo-thermal and nuclear 
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Money would be better spent on geo-thermal and nuclear power than wind power.
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: The money needed to develop wind technology is wasted and would be more useful in developing geo-thermal and nuclear power.
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind turbines represent a threat to the local wildlife habitat 
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind turbines are dangerous to animals and their habitats.
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy provides for price stability in the long-term, wind will be with us for the duration
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy costs can be projected long term and wind will not go away.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy prices will be stable and wind will always be around.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy has a stable price in the long-term, it will be with us for the long haul
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy has a stable price in the long-term, it will be with us in perpetuity. 
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is unreliable and provides only an irregular source of supply – and even then only in some countries 
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy isn't reliable and is inconsistent.
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Consistent and reliable wind energy isn't an option in all countries.
Output: undermine
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is an economic form of energy generation reducing both running costs and environmental harm
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy costs less to operate and is better for the environment.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy lessens two things - cost to operate and environmental impact.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is an economically sound form of energy generation, which  reduces both running costs and environmental harm .
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is an economical form of energy generation,  it is good at reducing both running costs and environmental harm 
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is more sustainable than burning fossil fuels or using nuclear power.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy is a renewable energy option, whereas fossil fuels and nuclear power are not.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to our other more limited resources.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative as opposed to our use fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Output: support
claim: Wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply.
 perspective: There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market 
Output: undermine
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: It would be too difficult to get the class to concentrate.
Output: undermine
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: Social media creates a positive atmosphere in the classroom.
Output: support
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: Social media relates school to life.
Output: support
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: Social media is a good tool in a classroom.
Output: support
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: It teaches social responsibility
Output: support
claim: Social Media should be part of the curriculum.
 perspective: Why teach someone to do what they already know how to do?
Output: undermine
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: We should obviously not like drug users
Output: undermine
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: Just because drug users deserve compassion doesn't mean we should like them in their drug addicted state. 
Output: undermine
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: Drug addiction isn't the addict's fault.
Output: support
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: Drug addicts suffer from a disease.
Output: support
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: Drug addiction is a disease that deserves the same compassionate care that cancer patients receive. 
Output: support
claim: We should show more compassion to drug addicts.
 perspective: Addiction is as much a disease as cancer and deserves the same compassionate care
Output: support
claim: Physical Education In Schools Should Be Compulsory.
 perspective: Participation in sport promotes a healthy lifestyle 
Output: support
claim: Physical Education In Schools Should Be Compulsory.
 perspective: Compulsory physical education risks unnecessary and costly injury 
Output: undermine
claim: Physical Education In Schools Should Be Compulsory.
 perspective: Requiring physical education can cause unexpected and unnecessary injuries.
Output: undermine
claim: Physical Education In Schools Should Be Compulsory.
 perspective: The risk of a physical education requirement results in the risks of injury.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay marriage is good for society
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Prominent religious bodies believe that non-heterosexuals seeking to be wed devalue the crucible of the marriage relationship.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Religion does not embraces marriage bonds between same-sex couples.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: God condemns gay marriage in the Bible and it is not supported by a lot of churches. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Same-Sex marriages should have the same legal protections as regular marriages.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: gays should be able to use thier rights
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Matrimony is a bond between man and woman only.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage should be between a man and a woman
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: A proper marriage is between two heterosexual people of different genders.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: State registrars conducting marriage ceremonies could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and creates a second class of citizens. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: gay should not be refused to marry
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is about more than procreation, therefore gay couples should not be denied the right to marry due to their biology.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: gay people should be able to marry
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: no matter what sexuality all should be able to marry
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Homosexuals would Change the Institution of Marriage for the Better
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay marriage would improve all marriages.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: EU Should Push Forward Equality for All of its Citizens Regardless of Sexuality
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The EU should press for full equality regardless of sexuality.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The EU should remove obstacles to equality in sexual preference.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Two people who want to get married should be able to, no matter their sexuality. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Homosexuals should have the same rights as straight people.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Heterosexuals shouldn't enjoy greater rights than homosexuals.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Same sex couple should have the same rights as heterosexual couples
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for all people. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay people should have the same human rights as Heterosexuals
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Who says who can marry and who can't
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: All people have the right to marry.
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Nature Suggests That Same Sex Marriage is Illogical
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: From a logical standpoint same sex marriage is illogical.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing gay marriage often leads to an end to domestic partnership benefits for gay and straight couples, which disadvantages couples who choose not to get married. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: If gay couples don't get married it means they lose benefits through the legalization of gay marriage.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution of marriage. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The institution of marriage has been weakened in recent years and allowing gay marriage will only further damage an already crumbling institution.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay marriage will not be a positive boost to the institution of marriage.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Same-sex marriage is a civil right. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Our constitution  is based on the idea that all people are equal and thus getting married is a civil right. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: People have fought for civil rights and same sex marriage is a civil right. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should be weakened, not expanded. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage is not something we should encourage or support.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: There are many types of marriage which are innaporpoate and dangerous which may be allowed if gay marriage is legalized. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing gay marriage is a stepping stone toward disgusting and harmful marriage practices such as incestuous, bestial and child marriages. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing gay marriage advances the "homosexual agenda" and unfairly paints opponents as bigots. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Those against gay marriage are called names if gay marriage is legalized.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing marriage by gays leads to the oppression of those who are against the practice.
Output: undermine
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The idea of a "traditional marriage" is a modern convention and has not remained static over the centuries. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: There is no historical basis for believing so called "traditional marriages" have been changeless over the centuries. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Many religious leaders and churches support gay marriage and say it is consistent with scripture. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: There is much debate about gay marriage but many religious leaders are in support of it regardless. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Even though a vocal group of religious people disagrees with gay marriage, there is a growing number of religious leaders who support it and can back up their opinions with scripture. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religious objections to same-sex marriage. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Religion does not have power over marriage and it should not be limited to heterosexual marriage based on that religion. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: As a secular institution, marriage can not be limited to heterosexuals only based on religious ideals. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of psychological disorders. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: If gay marriage is banned, there is likely to be increased rates of psychological disorders. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: We can reduce the prevalence of psychological disorders in the gay community by allowing gay marriage. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage, and same-sex marriages may even be more stable than heterosexual marriages. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The institution of marriage cannot be harmed by giving more people the freedom to marry and it may become the case that heterosexual marriage is less stable than same-sex marriage. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: There are economic advantages for states to approve gay marriages. 
Output: support
claim: Gay couples should be allowed to marry.
 perspective: The economy of states can be boosted by allowing same-sex marriages. 
Output: support
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: It adds to sports value
Output: undermine
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: Sports loses its value because of the large amount of money involved.
Output: undermine
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: College sports should be for competition not money.
Output: undermine
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: Money adds value to sports.
Output: undermine
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: Sports gain value through money.
Output: undermine
claim: Money undermines sport’s values.
 perspective: monetary pursuits outside of professional winnings take a players' attention off the game,close friends & family and their own health.
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining causes public sector pay crises
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining Leads to an Overpaid Public Sector
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining can lead to overpaying the public sector.
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining leads to overpayment of the public sector.
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining is a Right.
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: We have the right to collective bargaining.
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is detrimental to democracy.
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is undemocratic
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining Hurts the Democratic Process
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Democracy is hurt by collective bargaining.
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Democracy requires collective bargaining
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is not a right
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: There is no right to collective bargaining
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: No one has a right to collective bargaining
Output: support
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Natural monopolies require collective bargaining.
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining is helpful with monopolies.
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective bargaining counters the power of natural monopolies
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: In order to have voices heard, collective bargaining is needed.
Output: undermine
claim: Abolish all collective bargaining rights claimed by trades unions.
 perspective: We must maintain collective bargaining to hear all voices.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare is not affordable
Output: support
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: It costs too much money to support universal healthcare.
Output: support
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare is just too expensive.
Output: support
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Healthcare has been recognised as a right
Output: support
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare stifles innovation
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare prevents healthcare advances.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a system of universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare doesn't allow for any new medical breakthroughs.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: In areas with bad drinking water we should use bottled water.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is a healthy alternative to sugar drinks.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: In some cases bottled water is useful.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply. 
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: We must have bottled water for emergency water.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Water must be stored in containers for emergencies and bottled water is the ideal solution.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful. 
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: There are sufficient numbers of public water fountains to support banning bottled water to save money.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses. 
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water will negatively affect businesses.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water restrict consumers ability to obtain water.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Most beverage have plastic containers so banning plastic water bottles is not the answer.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: With plastic container being so prevalent banning plastic water bottles will not reduce plastic waste.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Local water supplies would benefit from the banning of bottled water.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Ending the use of bottled water would save local water supplies.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is important for travelers to avoid illnesss.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water helps travelers avoid illness in areas with unsafe taps.
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine
Output: undermine
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is expensive.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: The expense of bottled water is much greater than tap water.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Its harmful to the environment
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: Bottled water is not environmental friendly.
Output: support
claim: Bottled water should be banned.
 perspective: The environment is hurt by bottled water.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: People want to know what they're buying.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: People want to understand the contents of the book.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: People should be able to easily understand what is in the book.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Danger of censorship.
Output: undermine
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Having warnings could lead to the censorships of books.
Output: undermine
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Content warnings are a slippery slope towards censorship.
Output: undermine
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Written works should be subject to the same types of ratings systems as other entertainment media
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Rating systems for other media have been effective for other media and should be used for books.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Other entertainment media has used a rating system for a long time and books should start too.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Parents need advice when buying for children.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Parents need to know if a book is appropriate for children.
Output: support
claim: Books should have content warnings.
 perspective: Parents want to make sure the books they get for kids could be inappropriate.
Output: support
claim: Penalise religious hate speech.
 perspective: Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard. 
Output: undermine
claim: Penalise religious hate speech.
 perspective: All speech should be free, no matter the content.
Output: undermine
claim: Penalise religious hate speech.
 perspective: Freedom of speech should be upheld, no matter what.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water helps travelers avoid illness in areas with unsafe taps.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: In areas with bad drinking water we should use bottled water.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water is a healthy alternative to sugar drinks.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: In some cases bottled water is useful.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water is expensive.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: The expense of bottled water is much greater than tap water.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Its harmful to the environment
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water is not environmental friendly.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: The environment is hurt by bottled water.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply. 
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: We must have bottled water for emergency water.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Water must be stored in containers for emergencies and bottled water is the ideal solution.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful. 
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: There are sufficient numbers of public water fountains to support banning bottled water to save money.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses. 
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water will negatively affect businesses.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water restrict consumers ability to obtain water.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Most beverage have plastic containers so banning plastic water bottles is not the answer.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: With plastic container being so prevalent banning plastic water bottles will not reduce plastic waste.
Output: undermine
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Local water supplies would benefit from the banning of bottled water.
Output: support
claim: It is time to stop buying bottled water.
 perspective: Ending the use of bottled water would save local water supplies.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Most other countries in Europe have abandoned the monarch
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: The Monarchy is backward and prejudiced
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: The Monarchy system is biased and inefficient.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Regressive and biased is how the Monarchy system is.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: The Monarchy contrasts the meaning of Democracy
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: It is costing the tax payers money which could be better spent
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Tax payers money could be spent more appropriately.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: The tax payers are the ones losing out on money that could be spent properly.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: tax payers money is valuable
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: tax payers money should be useful only to the public
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Monarchy is a child's creation
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Monarchy is just childish.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: Monarchy is an infantile idea.
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: it is high time to scrap monarchy
Output: support
claim: Britain should become a republic.
 perspective: monarchy in britain led to lots of chaos in the past
Output: support
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: Yes its slavery and rape.
Output: support
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: The ban will give powers to police to crack down on the murky underworld of forced marriages
Output: support
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: Forced marriage is a barrier to integration
Output: support
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: Regulating arranges marriages in EU countries would be impossible.
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: It would be impossible to enforce a ban on arranged marriages in EU countries.
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: The state should not regulate such personal matters. 
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: Personal matters should not be regulated by the state
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: Arranged marriages remains a personal choices and as such shouldn't be banned by the state.
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage should be banned.
 perspective: To ban arranged marriages in EU countries would initiate resentment from certain communities.
Output: undermine
claim: Forced marriage 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: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare is not affordable
Output: support
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: It costs too much money to support universal healthcare.
Output: support
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare is just too expensive.
Output: support
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Healthcare has been recognised as a right
Output: support
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare stifles innovation
Output: undermine
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare prevents healthcare advances.
Output: undermine
claim: America should have universal healthcare.
 perspective: Universal healthcare doesn't allow for any new medical breakthroughs.
Output: undermine
claim: Widen the East African Community.
 perspective: Education standards will be improved across the region
Output: support
claim: Terrorists should be subject to the Geneva Conventions.
 perspective: With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism.
Output: undermine
claim: Terrorists should be subject to the Geneva Conventions.
 perspective: There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions.
Output: undermine
claim: We have to cut the length of copyright protection.
 perspective: Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work
Output: support
claim: We have to cut the length of copyright protection.
 perspective: Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: No, because the resolution states the action as "in response" rather than "in defense". 
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: It is not morally allowed unless someone is defending themselves
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: They are allowed to defend themselves but not to actively engage 
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: It is not acceptable for victims to use deadly force, no matter what the reason
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: It is not morally acceptable for a person to harm another for any reason
Output: undermine
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: Deadly force  is justifiable for domestic violence.
Output: support
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: If victims experience domestic violence repeatedly, it's morally okay for them to use deadly force to defend themselves
Output: support
claim: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
 perspective: It is morally acceptable for victims to defend themselves from repeated domestic abuse
Output: support
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: A ban may make the problem worse
Output: undermine
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Prohibiting it will make the situation even more dire.
Output: undermine
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Restrictions will not help, instead will will worsen the problem.
Output: undermine
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Allows everyone to be perfect
Output: undermine
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Banning would help create a beneficial cultural shift
Output: support
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Objectification of women’s bodies
Output: support
claim: Airbrushing of women’s bodies in the media be banned.
 perspective: Would give women the opportunity to speak out
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: The state should refrain from imposing bans
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: The states should not impose bans.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: The states should hold back on imposing bans.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: House printers are destroying developing economies in the short term.
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: It is too easy to create illegal products when individuals own 3D printers.
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: 3D printers owned by individuals can be used to create illegal products.
Output: support
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Democratization  gives people more freedom.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Democratization  gives people more freedom than having to be limited to a company.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Banning 3D printers is a waste of time.
Output: undermine
claim: There must be a ban the sale of 3D printers to households.
 perspective: Banning 3D printers is a waste of a chance at pure innovation.
Output: undermine
claim: Cramming before exams is a bad idea.
 perspective: Long sessions of cramming are totally inefficient
Output: support
claim: Cramming before exams is a bad idea.
 perspective: Cramming sessions are ineffective in learning material for exams.
Output: support
claim: Cramming before exams is a bad idea.
 perspective: It is a waste of time to cram for exams.
Output: support
claim: Cramming before exams is a bad idea.
 perspective: Creates a culture of doing enough to pass exams that actually aquiring knowledge
Output: undermine