niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Major League Baseball should expand instant replay for more accurate calls.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Umpires Approve Instant Replay for Major League Baseball so they can make more accurate calls.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay supports the goal of making accurate calls
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Using instant replay helps make sure the right calls are made
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: there is confusion in viewing instant replay
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: some things could be missed when viewing and instant replay during a game. 
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay will make play caling easier on umpires.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Umpires will benfit greatly from instant replay in the MLB physically.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Why even have an umpire if every play can be instantly replayed?
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay allows the proper rules to be put in place in the MLB.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: The MLB should take up instant relay to make sure the umpires make the right calls.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay will take too long
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay will make long MLB games even longer.
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay drags ut calls most umpires can make already.
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay is not beneficial to the game
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Instant replay should not be used during baseball games
Output: undermine
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: Online Shopping Takes Less Time
Output: support
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: Online shopping is fast.
Output: support
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: Shopping online is quicker than in store.
Output: support
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: Offline Shopping Is Safer
Output: undermine
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: Online Shopping Doesn’t Require You To Drive
Output: support
claim: Online Shopping Is Better Than Offline Shopping.
 perspective: You don't have to leave the house to shop online.
Output: support
claim: Put taxes/revenue from oil into a trust fund independent of politicians influence.
 perspective: An independent trust fund discourages investment.
Output: undermine
claim: Put taxes/revenue from oil into a trust fund independent of politicians influence.
 perspective: trust funds do not help investing
Output: undermine
claim: Put taxes/revenue from oil into a trust fund independent of politicians influence.
 perspective: Keeping funds from government has negative consequences for spending
Output: undermine
claim: Put taxes/revenue from oil into a trust fund independent of politicians influence.
 perspective: Lack of government funds decreases spending.
Output: undermine
claim: Put taxes/revenue from oil into a trust fund independent of politicians influence.
 perspective: There are negative consequences for spending if funds are kept from the government.
Output: undermine
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The Hyperlook is cost effective.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: Compared to other methods of transportation, the Hyperloop is inexpensive.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: Fastest possible transportation over a short distance
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The fastest route over a short distance
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The fastest route over one short distance 
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: It will never work
Output: undermine
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: It's utility is doubtful.
Output: undermine
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: It's unlikely it will function as planned.
Output: undermine
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: The Hyperloop will be affordable for consumers.
Output: support
claim: We should encourage building the Hyperloop.
 perspective: People will be able to afford to use the Hyperloop.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Everyone has the right to free speech including teachers. 
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Teachers should have freedom to explore ideas just as much as everyone else. 
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Evolution is allowed to be explored along with other theories.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: This bill allows teachers and students to explore all theories including evolution. 
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Creationism and evolution both have merits and it should be up to the children to decide which to believe in.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Teachers should only teach what is agreed to as fact.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Schools must teach what is evidence-based, which would mean to teach abiogenesis and not Creationism.  
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Faith-based Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because they must be fact-based, s abiogenesis and evolution are.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Children deserve to hear both sides of the argument over the origin of life.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Because Creationism is a valid scientific theory, it should be given equal time in teaching.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: We must teach Creationism as an alternative theory because it is scientifically valid.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Creationism has theoretical answers to questions evolution can't answer.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Evolution cannot answer irreducible complexity like Creationism can.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Creationism isn't supported by the scientific community.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Communities have a right to insist on Creationism when it is popular.
Output: support
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Society should educate based on  objective facts, rather than subjective beliefs and opinion.
Output: undermine
claim: Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore the merits of creationism.
 perspective: Unproven speculative beliefs have no place in education as it needs to be based on provable facts.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Benefit from the increase in skills through their standard of living
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The aging population and increasing retirement age requires higher skills
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Young people should have the choice to decide for themselves
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Young people should have the freedom to make their own choices.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Young people should be able to think for themselves and make their own decisions.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The economy of the future requires more education
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: In the future, the economy will rely on those with more education.
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The economy needs educated people in order to do well in the future.
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Society has a moral responsibility to educate all its young people
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Society should make it easier for all young people to receive an education.
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Unrealistically costly
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Not everyone is good at studying
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Some people are unable to handle the rigor of university-level coursework.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: We shouldn't force people to study if they aren't good at it and choose not to.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: not everyone is good academically
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: some people are not good at studying
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Compulsory studying would be taking young people out of the workforce
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Making university education compulsory would take young people out of the workforce.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: some young people would be taken out of workforce by compulsory studying
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: compulsory studying may remove young people from the workforce
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: More education brings more opportunities
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The more education you have the more opportunities
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Opportunities are influenced by education
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The longer they are educated, the more opportunities they get
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: With more education comes more opportunities
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: There are cases where leaving school early is necessary
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Forced education achieves little
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Education that is forced does little.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Little is accomplished when education is forced.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Some skills are better learned outside the classroom.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: The classroom environment is not ideal for all lessons.
Output: undermine
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: Society's future depends on raising the school-leaving age.
Output: support
claim: We should make education compulsory to degree level.
 perspective: A good investment in society would be to raise the school leaving age.
Output: support
claim: We must have weapons inspectors leave Syria.
 perspective: A point on the path to peace
Output: support
claim: We must have weapons inspectors leave Syria.
 perspective: One step in the direction of peace. 
Output: support
claim: We must have weapons inspectors leave Syria.
 perspective: One step to a path leading to peace. 
Output: support
claim: We must have weapons inspectors leave Syria.
 perspective: Syria has not lived up to its commitments
Output: undermine
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: Antartic resource exploitation is unevitable: Let's do it orderly!
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: Exploiting Antartica for its resources must be done with careful planning, organization and care for the land.
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: Eventually Antarctica will be be exploited for its resources, but will we be prepared to do it carefully?
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: No possible over abuse on the resources, just a utilitarian, global benefit
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: Only if the world benefits should Antartica's resources be exploited.
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: A resource treasure for humanity
Output: support
claim: Antarctica Should Be Opened Up For Resource Exploitation.
 perspective: Antartica: A common heritage to the benefit of mankind
Output: support
claim: The world has to ignore North Korean provocations.
 perspective: Providing attention simply encourages the regime
Output: support
claim: The world has to ignore North Korean provocations.
 perspective: Media attention only encourages North Korean provocations.
Output: support
claim: The world has to ignore North Korean provocations.
 perspective: Less attention must be paid towards North Korea in order to stop encouragement of their regime..
Output: support
claim: The world has to ignore North Korean provocations.
 perspective: Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation
Output: undermine
claim: The world has to ignore North Korean provocations.
 perspective: North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored
Output: undermine
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: Moving is an imperative
Output: support
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: We shall move at once.
Output: support
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: We will move as soon as possible.
Output: support
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: Other nations have an obligation to help
Output: support
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: Other nations are obliged to help. 
Output: support
claim: The Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change.
 perspective: Other nations have the duty to help. 
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: We are obligated to promote racial equality and provide affirmative action programs.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: We have a moral obligation to stop discrimination with affirmative action.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Discrimination can be helped by affirmative action.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: The cycle of racial discrimination can be broken through affirmative action programs.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Affirmative action reduces social prejudice
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Affirmative action is needed to combat racial and gender prejudice.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: We can help decrease social prejudice with affirmative action programs.
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: It has unnecessarily extended into sports which affects the success of our national teams.
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: It is a racist policy towards those it is trying to help
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: It becomes a weapon of revenge
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA does more good than harm
Output: support
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Skilled individuals carry the underskilled individuals who have been appointed due to their colour
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Time to remove Affirmative Action from the EE Act
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA is more harmful than good
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA actually does more harm than it does good
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: It is possible that sometimes AA might not be that beneficial
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA may not be as helpful as originally intended.
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA may not be helpful.
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: AA does more harm than good
Output: undermine
claim: Affirmative action is necessary.
 perspective: Affirmative Action is necessary to combat racism.
Output: support
claim: Kill One to Save Many.
 perspective: We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not
Output: undermine
claim: Kill One to Save Many.
 perspective: Killing is worse than letting someone die
Output: undermine
claim: Kill One to Save Many.
 perspective: The act of killing is emotionally damaging
Output: undermine
claim: Kill One to Save Many.
 perspective: We instinctively know killing is wrong
Output: undermine
claim: Kill One to Save Many.
 perspective: We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The current laws on prostitution are not helpful to women.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Women are patronized by the current prostitution laws and therefore they are wrong.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The law is patronizing to women
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The law patronizes women
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: No, can you imagine the ADS on TV?
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalizing prostitution will result pornographic advertisements. 
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The advertising  for prostitution would be against public decency.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalised prostitution still victimises the vulnerable.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitution hurts vulnerable women. 
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitution takes advantage of women, turning them into victims.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Would lead to similar policy towards drugs
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: We should declare the war on prostitution
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: The law should not condone illicit behaviour
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prevent Prostitution From Going Underground
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: If made illegal, prostitution will move to an underground black market.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: It is best to have prostitution legal and regulated, as being made illegal won't stop it.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Many women who have nothing become prostitutes to survive
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: It would not solve the violence of prostitution.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Proposal will exacerbate the HIV problem
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalizing prostitution would exacerbate the HIV problem.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitutes will be safer under legalisation
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitutes have some safety with this legalisation.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalisation Can Be A Part of a Wider Education Program
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitution Should Be Legalised to Protect and educate Sex Workers
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalized prostitution would protect sex workers from abuse and educate them about STDs.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Detrimental to womens rights
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalizing prostitution opposes women's rights.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities 
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty 
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Sex markets undermine the institution of marriage.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Sex markets are bad for society.
Output: undermine
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Society benefits from prostitution.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Prostitution has benefits.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Sex satisfies certain markets.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: People can choose their sexual consumption.
Output: support
claim: Prostitution Should Be Legal.
 perspective: Sex is a choice.
Output: support
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: It is unacceptable to live in a world where killing is ever justified, no matter how many lives it may save.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: We cannot support a world where killing is acceptable as long as it saves lives.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: Intiution explains the reason why the decision to kill is viewed as wrong ,as a general principle.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: The possibility for the universal recogonition that killing is wrong can be deduced by pure intuition.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many
Output: support
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: When presented with the choice, logical citizens would choose to live in a society that valued the will of the people versus the will of the few.
Output: support
claim: It is fine to kill one to save many.
 perspective: All educated people would prefer to live in a world that aligned itself with the principle of saving many at the expense of one, if presented the choice.
Output: support
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers funnel money away from already-struggling public schools and children and redistribute tax dollars to private schools and middle-class children
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers don't support the poor income people who need it most.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers only benefit people who don't need the help.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers take from the poor and give to other social classes
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers will only help the middle-class instead of the poor
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers fail to accommodate and support disabled and special-needs students
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers ignore the special needs community which need lots of extra help.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: There will always be disabled students that need to be looked out for and vouchers ignore that.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers ignore the needs of disabled and special-needs students
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: Disabled and special-needs students are not accounted for with school vouchers
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers do not improve students’ academic performance
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: Vouchers have no direct correlation to improving academics.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: Vouchers don't make schools better, it does not affect the eucation.
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers have no effect on the academic performance of the students
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: There is no academic impact that comes with the school vouchers
Output: undermine
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers allow school districts to overcome racial and other segregations
Output: support
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: School vouchers offer students in failing schools access to a better education
Output: support
claim: School vouchers should be encouraged.
 perspective: Vouchers allow parents to choose their child’s education
Output: support
claim: Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised.
 perspective: Psychological harms of polygamy
Output: undermine
claim: Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised.
 perspective: Polygamy can cause emotional harm.
Output: undermine
claim: Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised.
 perspective: It would create demographic imbalance
Output: undermine
claim: Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised.
 perspective: Demographics would be upset if polygamy was allowed.
Output: undermine
claim: Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised.
 perspective: Allowing polygamy to be acceptable would disrupt the structure of society.
Output: undermine
claim: Man made climate change is a myth.
 perspective: Science is self correcting
Output: support
claim: Man made climate change is a myth.
 perspective: Lack of scientific understanding
Output: undermine
claim: Actively circumventing Internet censorship is a legitimate foreign policy tool.
 perspective: It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters
Output: undermine
claim: Actively circumventing Internet censorship is a legitimate foreign policy tool.
 perspective: It is legitimate to enable freedom
Output: support
claim: Actively circumventing Internet censorship is a legitimate foreign policy tool.
 perspective: This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive
Output: undermine
claim: Actively circumventing Internet censorship is a legitimate foreign policy tool.
 perspective: It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights
Output: support
claim: Actively circumventing Internet censorship is a legitimate foreign policy tool.
 perspective: Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy
Output: undermine
claim: Language does control thought.
 perspective: Do we think in words? Are our thoughts in our native language?
Output: support
claim: Language does control thought.
 perspective: Can we understand concepts we don't have words for?
Output: support
claim: Language does control thought.
 perspective: Can our brain/thoughts function without language?
Output: support
claim: Language does control thought.
 perspective: Surely thought comes before language
Output: undermine
claim: Language does control thought.
 perspective: Surely thought comes before language.
Output: undermine
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions 
Output: undermine
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe
Output: support
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: Is colonizing the moon the first step to developing space?
Output: support
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: Is the moon the first start to space development?
Output: support
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon
Output: support
claim: We must colonize moon.
 perspective: A second Earth on the moon is technologically feasible.
Output: support
claim: Attorney-client privilege should be abolished.
 perspective: The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance
Output: support
claim: Attorney-client privilege should be abolished.
 perspective: Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations
Output: support
claim: Companies should provide alternative interview methods.
 perspective: Can't get a realistic impression of a person in such a short space of time.
Output: support
claim: Companies should provide alternative interview methods.
 perspective: Would create confusion.
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Its a business, a business doing its job
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Advertising is a part of a good business plan. 
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: A good business needs to look to promote its mission. 
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity. 
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Banning toys in fast food meals will not create healthier food choices.
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Such bans are easy to side step. 
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: A variant means to sell the toys separately can be used as an incentive for future food discounts.
Output: undermine
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Bad nutrition habits start during childhood. 
Output: support
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Advertising should not be allowed to seduce vulnerable children who do not understand what they want.
Output: support
claim: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned.
 perspective: Governemnt needs more power over fast food advertising to force children to make the correct choices about their food.
Output: support
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: Human development indicators have significantly improved in recent years.
Output: support
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: Africa’s Economies are growing rapidly
Output: support
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: Majority of states are still undemocratic
Output: undermine
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: Greater Access to Technology 
Output: support
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: The Continent is still vulnerable to natural disasters
Output: undermine
claim: Africa is really rising.
 perspective: Foreign Direct Investment to the continent has increased
Output: support
claim: Lack of Parental Guidance Is Mainly Responsible for Children Being Violent and Aggressive in School.
 perspective: Parents are too busy with their careers which leads children to seek attention by being aggressive
Output: support
claim: Lack of Parental Guidance Is Mainly Responsible for Children Being Violent and Aggressive in School.
 perspective: Missing parents can lead to destructive behavior in their children.
Output: support
claim: Lack of Parental Guidance Is Mainly Responsible for Children Being Violent and Aggressive in School.
 perspective: Parents need to spend time with their children or children's behavior may turn aggressive. 
Output: support
claim: Sanctions should be used to promote democracy.
 perspective: Sanctions are ineffective because they hurt ordinary people more than leadership.
Output: undermine
claim: Sanctions should be used to promote democracy.
 perspective: Sanctions do not harm the right people.
Output: undermine
claim: Sanctions should be used to promote democracy.
 perspective: Sanctions are ineffective because they can be counterproductive.
Output: undermine
claim: Sanctions should be used to promote democracy.
 perspective: Sanctions cause more harm than good.
Output: undermine
claim: Sanctions should be used to promote democracy.
 perspective: Sanctions can backfire.
Output: undermine
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology
Output: undermine
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: The introduction of technology is inevitable
Output: support
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world
Output: undermine
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario
Output: undermine
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: GLT is used across a range of other sports
Output: support
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: Technology is available
Output: support
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: Technology is more reliable than human judgement
Output: support
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: Human judgement is never without prejudice which makes technology more reliable. 
Output: support
claim: Goal line technology has to be adopted in football.
 perspective: Technology relies of facts and figures without the corrupting influence of opinions or morals. 
Output: support
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: Eastern European and post Soviet states would benefit from NATO expansion.
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: The expansion of NATO would be beneficial for eastern European and post Soviet states.
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO development would profit eastern European and post Soviet states
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO establishments would profit eastern European and post Soviet states
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: Russia is no longer a threat
Output: undermine
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability
Output: support
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO expansion has always been necessary for international stability. 
Output: support
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: International stability is only possible with NATO expansion.
Output: support
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: NATO expansion was essential for international stability 
Output: support
claim: We should expand NATO.
 perspective: Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia
Output: undermine
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Regional factors favour re-engagement
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Regional factors show re-engagement would be positive.
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Positive outcomes can be expected from re-engagement.
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement
Output: undermine
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: The reform movement will be harmed by re-engagement.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Re-engagement will do more harm than good.
Output: undermine
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Vested international interest are harming Myanmar
Output: undermine
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: This region would benefit from re-engagement.
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: Re-engagement is the best option for this region.
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: States should not be isolated on political grounds
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: political grounds should not isolate states
Output: support
claim: The world should re-engage with Myanmar.
 perspective: states should be united despite political grounds.
Output: support
claim: Those affected by climate change should get compensation.
 perspective: It is hard to apportion blame
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Tablets have too many distractions for classroom use.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: There are too many ways the tablets could distract from education.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Students could use the tablets in distracting ways.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Tablets are unnecessary because print textbooks that are not brand new still convey relevant information to K-12 students.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: The textbooks that are already available still convey relevant info for students.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Students already get the relevant information needed with textbooks.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: The higher cost of tablets marginalizes poorer school districts and increases the "digital divide."
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Tablets in K-12 schools have higher costs than textbooks and therefore increases the digital divide.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: TOPIC #7: Should tablets replace textbooks in K 12 schools?
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Using tablets is more expensive than using print textbooks.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: It would be expensive to use tablets instead of books.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Print textbooks cannot crash, freeze, or get hacked.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Written textbooks are safer because they do not suffer from risks technology does.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Handheld technological devices including tablets are associated with a range of health problems.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Tablets lead to student health issues.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Student health is harmed by tablet use.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Many students do not have sufficient home internet bandwidth to use tablets.
Output: undermine
claim: Tablets should replace textbooks in K-12 schools.
 perspective: Not all students could use the tablets at home.
Output: undermine