niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: There are many flaws to the theory that violent video games cause real life violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: The Responsibility Lies With Parents
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video games lead to inappropriate social interactions.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video games are detrimental to social interaction.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent video games desensitise users
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Violent games normalizes forms of violence.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Restrictions would be ineffective
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Restricting video games only makes people more interested in them. 
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Restricting violent video games will have no correlation to a reduction in societal crime.
Output: undermine
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: In order to maintan a well funcitoning society, the government has a right to restrict violent games which could hurt people.
Output: support
claim: Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence.
 perspective: Video games are content that has a right to be censored for the mass majority's public safety.
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism is antithetical to liberal democracy‏.
Output: undermine
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism means that everyone is the same, and then nobody is happy. 
Output: undermine
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism promotes more tolerant societies 
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Those countries that embrace and exchange cultures usually have healthier democracies.
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism is morally justified 
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism promotes healthier new generations
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism doesn't create diverse societies; it creates politically correct societies.
Output: undermine
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Politically correct societies remain so until someone decides that homogeneity is not a good thing and then trouble begins.
Output: undermine
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Multiculturalism greatly facilitates advancement and progress by advancing cultural exchange in both products and ideas.
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: Understanding diversity and all the different cultures around the world is the key to world peace.
Output: support
claim: Governments Should Actively Promote Multiculturalism.
 perspective: True progress comes when people take the time to understand other cultures - other people's beliefs and customs.
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight Saving Time (DST) Is Bad for Your Health.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Should DLS continue dispite of the health risks
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Healthy risks associated with DLS
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: DST brings with it additional risks for the population's health
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Negative health consequences can be a potential negative with the arrival of Daylight Savings Time.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight Saving Time's (DST) Longer Daylight Hours Promote Safety
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight savings allows for more light hours in the day
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight savings promotes safety with the extra hours of daylight
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: One of the residual advantages of DST is enhancement of a safe environment.
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Longer periods of daylight hours assist in a calmer, safer community.
Output: support
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: DST Is Expensive. 
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight savings time is expensive in us
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Is daylight savings time worth the extra expense
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: Daylight Savings Time bringing with it some undesirable cost components.
Output: undermine
claim: The United States should keep daylight saving time.
 perspective: The additional economic constraints of DST are usually not examined.
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: Social problems can be solved without resorting to physical punishments.
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: States' duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: It is the duty of the state to avoid using corporal punishment when they need to solve social problems.
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: Corporal punishment isn't a good idea when solving social problems.
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems
Output: undermine
claim: We should believe in corporal punishment for adult offenders.
 perspective: Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised 
Output: undermine
claim: Religions Should Not Qualify as Charities.
 perspective: Normal Charities Are More Focused on Their Mission
Output: support
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: smoking should be banned in public places
Output: support
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: people have the right to smoke 
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: You should be able to smoke in public.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Smoking is a personal choice, and should not be restricted.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: The decision to smoke is a human right.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Smoking is a human right.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: WHAT HAPPEN TO A FREE CANADA.  WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE TIME WERE SLAVES HAD NO RIGHT, NOW IT IS SMOKERS HAVE NO RIGHT
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Taking away a smoker's rights to smoke in public is akin to the time of slavery!
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: How can this be a free Canada, if our right to smoke in public is taken away?
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Canada is a free country, so we should be free to be able to smoke.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Being free to smoke is a basic right that someone in a free country should have.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: No - it should not be banned in places people CHOOSE to go  
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: A smoker should be allowed to smoke in any place that they have a choice to go to.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: If I choose to go somewhere, I should be allowed to smoke there.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Since people are choosing whether to go to places, smoking shouldn't be banned there,
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Smoking shouldn't be banned in places where people choose to be.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Banning smoking isn't necessary.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: smoking don't necessarily have to be banned
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: It isn't necessary to ban smoking.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: It's not necessary to ban smoking.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Banning smoking is not something that's necessary.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Banning smoking in public places is not right.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: It is not right to ban smoking.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Banning smoking is a bad idea.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: It's a bad idea to ban smoking.
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Smoking shouldnt be banned
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Ban would harm the wider economy
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: A smoking ban in public places is harmful to the economy
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Economic hardship would follow a public place smoking ban
Output: undermine
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Lower healthcare costs
Output: support
claim: Smoking should be banned in public places.
 perspective: Unenforceable
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to motorists
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras take motorists by surprise and distract them.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras distract mororists and are therefore dangerous.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras encourage responsibility for our actions  
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Caught on film you can't deny responsibility for your actions.
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Traffic cams can't be avoided and neither can you avoid responsibility for driving actions.
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Abolishing speed cameras makes drivers feel less responsible.
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras were meant to encourage good driving.
Output: undermine
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Driving behaviour has not changed since cameras were introduced
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Traffic cams have not altered driver behaviors.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Traffic cams have failed in their mission to alter drivers' behaviors.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Better car and medical technology has saved lives, not cameras
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Cameras don't save lives, better car and medical technology do,
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Improved car and medical technology save lives, cameras do not
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Cameras are money making, not life saving
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Traffic cams are just automated speed traps.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras were meant for monetary gains, not to improve driving.
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Cameras increased fatalities creating a “fatality gap” as decades of declining fatalities flattened out
Output: support
claim: We should abolish speed cameras.
 perspective: Speed cameras only detect 5% of all road accidents
Output: support
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: Social problems can be solved without resorting to physical punishments.
Output: undermine
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: States' duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems
Output: undermine
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: It is the duty of the state to avoid using corporal punishment when they need to solve social problems.
Output: undermine
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: Corporal punishment isn't a good idea when solving social problems.
Output: undermine
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems
Output: undermine
claim: We must bring back corporal punishment.
 perspective: Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised 
Output: undermine
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Guantanamo Bay’s Lack of Transparency Counters American Interests.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: American interests are counted by Guantanamo Bay's lack of transparency.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: The interests of America are undone by the lack of transparency of Guantanamo Bay.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Gauntanamo Bay is detrimental to foreign relations for United States.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Guantanamo Bay Violates Fundamental Human Rights.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Human Rights are violated by the continued use of Guantanamo Bay.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: The Guantanamo Bay facility is detrimental to Human Rights.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Guantanamo Bay is a Symbol of Muslim Discrimination that Fuels Terrorist Sentiments
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Terrorist sentiments are fueled by the symbol of Muslim discrimination that is Guantanamo Bay.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Guantanamo Bay creates an image of Muslim discrimination that continues to increase terrorist sentiments.
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Conditions at Guantanamo are unjust and unacceptable: 
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: Prisoners at Guantanamo experience unconscionable treatment.  
Output: support
claim: The US should immediately close Guantanamo Bay.
 perspective: The conditions at Guantanamo violate prisoners' basic rights.
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: It's a slippery slope from sports shooting to increased desensitization of the lethal nature of guns. 
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: To engage in sports shooting is a step towards complete desensitization to the harm imposed by firearms. 
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: The result of a handgun ban is lower crime and fewer deaths.
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: Lower crime rates and fewer deaths result when handguns are banned in a city.
Output: support
claim: We should limit the right to bear arms.
 perspective: Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.
Output: undermine
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: Further campaign finance reform is simply unrealistic and too ambitious. 
Output: undermine
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: It is unrealistic to believe campaign finance can be further reformed.
Output: undermine
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: Additional reformation of campaign finance is unrealistic.
Output: undermine
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions
Output: support
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks.
Output: undermine
claim: We must limit anonymous contributions from corporations and individuals to super PACs.
 perspective: Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently.
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: The many hidden subsidies to SE England would end.
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Independence would give Scotland clout where it matters
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: If Scotland were independent then it would have more power in important areas.
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: An independent Scotland nation-state would give it more influence.
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Scotland will be unable to survive economically without England
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Scotland would not be able to survive independently without England.
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Relations between Scots and English are deteriorating
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Other small nation-states like Norway and the Republic of Ireland are successful
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Norway and the Republic of Ireland are examples of successful nation-states.
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: You can look at Norway and the Republic of Ireland to see successful nation-states.
Output: support
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: The Scots themselves would vote against independence if there was a referendum.
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: If it should come to it, the Scottish people would not vote for independence.
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Scots would not be in favor of voting for independence. 
Output: undermine
claim: Scotland should cede from the union.
 perspective: Scotland has different interests to rUK
Output: support
claim: US must get rid of the double jeopardy rule.
 perspective: Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds
Output: undermine
claim: US must get rid of the double jeopardy rule.
 perspective: Defendants aren't brought to trial unnecessarily because of double jeopardy.
Output: undermine
claim: US must get rid of the double jeopardy rule.
 perspective: The double jeopardy principle ensures that only strong cases are brought against defendants.
Output: undermine
claim: US must get rid of the double jeopardy rule.
 perspective: Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: everyone deserves free speech
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: ban music that glorifies crime because of the influence it has on children
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: music that glorifies crime should be banned
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: music that glorifies crime needs to be banned
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Censoring Art Is Dangerous
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: It is dangerous to censor art.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Censoring art is extremely bad.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: people are influenced by violent music
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: violent music harms families 
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: If we change violent music, we can end the violence in society.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Violence is music leads to violence in real life, so ending violent music would lessen violence in real life.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: A change is needed to stop the cycle of violence.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Harmful speech needs to be filtered
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: When harmful speech is glorified in music, it leads to bad things in real life. 
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Filtering hate speech will keep it out of the mainstream and out of our lives.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: People are justified in listening to violent music
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: People have the right to listen to whatever music they want to.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Violent music can be listened to without people going out and doing what the music says.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: A ban is necessary for progress in the status of women.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: To ban violent music against weapon is to support positive status of women in society.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Both sexes are encouraged lose respect for women when music depicts violence against women.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Music depicting violence against women discourages respect of women in men and women.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: The violent music encourages disrespect toward women
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Music about violence against women  doesn't help the perception of women
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: It would not be at all practical to ban music glorifying violence.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Banning this music that glorifies violence is totally impractical.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: It is not realistic to expect a ban of violent music
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Women would be seen as helpless victims if we banned this type of music.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective:  It would encourage the viewing of women as helpless victims if this type of music was banned.
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: Banning the music would only make women seen more like victims
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: By banning the music, women will continue to be viewed as helpless
Output: undermine
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: This type of music is degrading to everyone, not just women.
Output: support
claim: Music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal lifestyles should be banned.
 perspective: this music harms women and others
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaigning reduces the diversity and representativeness of government.
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaign divides the nation and its people
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaigns helps reduce diversity
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaigning can create voter apathy
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negative campaigns can lead to negative governing.
Output: support
claim: We must ban negative advertising in political campaigns.
 perspective: Negativity in campaigns can lead to a government that is negative.
Output: support
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It causes problems in schools
Output: support
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: The veil is a symbol of oppression on women
Output: support
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Women are oppressed by face and hair coverings
Output: support
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It’s a personal matter – it doesn’t concern others
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Religious clothing is a matter of personal choice
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: No one should tell others how to dress
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Who cares if someone wears a veil?
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Why does it concern you if another person wears a veil?
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Its personal. Why does it matter to others.
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It’s their culture and religion
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It is their culture and religion!
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Face coverings like niqab are a part of their religion and should be allowed.
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It's not right for people to be forced to cover their religious face coverings since it's their culture.
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: If you ban it, you have to ban everything else
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: Bans on religious clothing could be a slippery slope
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: If you ban muslim clothing than you'll have to start banning catholic or jewish clothing too
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: It is a racism starter
Output: undermine
claim: The niqab and other face coverings in schools must be banned.
 perspective: The muslim veil brings out the racism in people.  
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Humans need meat in their diet
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Humans need to eat meat.
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Humans need to consume meat.
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: We shouldn't eat as muh meat.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: We should eat less meat.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: We should stop eating so much meat.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: If humans are like animals they should be able to eat them
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Humans should be allowed to eat animals. 
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: It is okay for humans to eat animals.
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: There's nothing inherently wrong with eating animals
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: It if fine to eat animals. 
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: It is not immoral to eat animals.
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: The farming of animals causes suffering. Causing suffering is wrong. The farming of animals is wrong
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Farming of animals causes suffering and is wrong.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Animal suffering is wrong; therefore, farming them is too, since it causes them to suffer.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Animals are below humans, therefore humans can eat them
Output: support
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: vegetarians visit hospitals 22% less often than meat eaters 
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Vegetarians visit hospitals 22% less than meat eaters.
Output: undermine
claim: Humans should eat meat.
 perspective: Vegetarians go to hospitals 22% less than meat eaters.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective:  It will facilitate world food distribution
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 2.3 million years. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Our bodies were not designed for a vegan diet
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: The evolution of humanity has progressed due to meat eating for 2.3 million years.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It has been vital for humans to eat meat for over 2 million years.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Meat consumption should be reduced, but does NOT need to be eradicated
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A Vegan diet would not be practical in most parts of the world
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet reduces overuse of antibiotics. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Anitbiotics aren't used in vegetarian foods.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets result in a reduction of antibiotic usage.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets are not necessarily better for the environment. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: There is no evidence that vegetarian diets help the environment. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: People who eat meat are not harming the environment. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets aren't always more environmentally friendly
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarianism doesn't always help the environment
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Human anatomy has evolved to support a primarily vegetarian diet. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: The human body has changed over time to be able to handle a largely vegetarian diet
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: The internal organs of humans have changed over time to support a diet that is free of meat
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet reduces the chances of developing kidney stones and gallstones. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Risk of kidney stones and gallstones can be reduced with a vegetarian diet.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarians do not live longer. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: People who eat meat live just as long as vegetarians.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarians die at the same rate as meat eaters.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarians have average lifespans
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarianism makes no difference in longevity
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Studies show that vegetarians are up to 40% less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective:  vegetarians are 40 % less likely to have cancer
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet lowers the risk of heart disease. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A diet devoid of meat lowers the risk of heart disease.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet provides a more healthful form of iron than a meat-based diet. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Iron from a vegetarian diet is healthier than from a meat-based diet.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet is a healthier way to get iron than from a meat-based diet.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet can help alleviate world hunger. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: World hunger can be reduced with a vegetarian diet.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating a vegetarian diet can lead to less hunger around the world.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat provides healthy saturated fats, which enhance the function of the immune and nervous systems. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Saturated fats in meat help the immune and nervous system.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Lean red meat, eaten in moderation, can be a healthful part of a balanced diet. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Red meat can be unhealthy if eaten in large quantities and too often but is healthy in moderation. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A balanced and healthy diet consists of vegetables and lean red meat. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Lean red meat can be healthy
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Lean red meat is not necessarily unhealthy
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Animals can also die as a result of vegetarian diets.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Animals will still die even if everyone were to follow a vegetarian diet.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals too
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating More Meat is Linked to Higher Risk of Type 2
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Processed vegetarian protein options such as tofu can cause more greenhouse gas pollution than farming meat. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Farming meat can produce less pollution than companies that process vegetarian proteins like tofu.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Some vegetarian options cause more greenhouse gas emissions than meat production
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Processed vegetarian protein is less environmentally friendly than eating meat
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It is not necessary to become vegetarian to lower our environmental footprint. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: There are ways other than giving up meat to help the environment.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: People do not have to stop eating meat to improve environmental conditions.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet conserves water. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: People can conserve water by becoming a vegetarian.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Becoming a vegetarian is healthy for the environment because people conserve more water.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It is cruel and unethical to kill animals for food when vegetarian options are available. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: If there are meat-free options available, it is brutal and immoral to kill animals for food
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It is deplorable and unconscionable to take the life of an animal for food when one has a choice to eat vegetarian meals
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: The right to eat what we want, including meat, is a fundamental liberty that we must defend. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Individuals have a right to eat meat if they want to.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: People have a right to eat meat or anything else that they want to.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: We may accept that we have the right to eat meat
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Becoming vegetarian will not help alleviate world hunger. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: World hunger can not be fixed by vegetarianism. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: There must be access to meats in order to alleviate world hunger. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarian diets won't help world hunger
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarianism doesn't reduce world hunger
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Raising animals for food contributes to air and water pollution. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Vegetarians live longer. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It has been proven that Vegetarians Live Longer
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat provides a better source of iron than a vegetarian diet. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Iron from meat is often cited as better than vegetables.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: I think iron from meat eating is healthier than the vegetarian way.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Producing one hamburger destroys 55 square feet of rainforest. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Rainforests are destroyed to support animals used for food.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: There is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat is part of the cycle of life.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Raising animals for food is not cruel.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It is not cruel or wrong to raise animals to be eaten.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: There is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Meat is the best source of vitamin B12, a vitamin necessary to nervous and digestive system health. 
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: It was proven the b12 from meat is helps the nervous and digestive system.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: For optimum nervous and digestive health, b12 from meat is ideal.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: If people became vegetarian, greenhouse gases would reduce. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet is better for the planet because it reduces greenhouse gases.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet delivers complete nutrition and can provide health benefits. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: In addition to health benefits, a vegetarian diet also gives you everything your body needs.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Complete nutrition and health benefits can be had with a vegetarian diet.
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet promotes a healthy weight. 
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: Healthy weight can be achieved with a vegetarian diet
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet contributes to a healthy weight
Output: support
claim: The world should go vegan.
 perspective: A vegetarian diet helps build healthy bones because vegetarians absorb more calcium than meat eaters. 
Output: support