niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Pest control or conservation arguments does not rationalize our use of animals as objects in blood sports.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: The use of animals as objects in blood sports cannot be justified by the week argument that it provides benefit through pest control or conservation.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: When animals are treated as property it prevents them from being perceieved as part of the moral community. 
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are not percieved as part of the moral community when they are treated as property.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Objectifying animals enables people to absolve themselves from their moral treatment.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Animals should not be treated as objects or property as doing so allows them to be treated amorally.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: All uses of animals for entertainment harm the animals.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Even the most innocent of entertainment using animals harms the animals.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Animals as entertainment is always harmful to the animals
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: It is not possible to harmlessly have animals as entertainment
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: The use of animals in sport demeans humans
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: The use of animals in sport is demeaning to humans. 
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: The devaluation of animals as an object of sport, devalues life including human life.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Humans ultimately devalue their own lives when using animals as objects of sport.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Bullfighting is dangerous for humans and should be banned.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: We must ban bullfighting to keep humans from recklessly getting injured and even dying.
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Harming animals for entertainment is immoral
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: It is not moral to hurt animals for entertainment
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Hurting animals for fun is immoral
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Bullfighting is a form of animal torture
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Bullfighting is animal torture
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: One form of animal torture is bullfighting
Output: support
claim: The use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment should be banned.
 perspective: Bullfighting should be treated like other forms of animal torture
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Bullfighting is too dangerous to humans to justify
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Bullfighting is dangerous for humans and should be banned.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: We must ban bullfighting to keep humans from recklessly getting injured and even dying.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Harming animals for entertainment is immoral
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: It is not moral to hurt animals for entertainment
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Hurting animals for fun is immoral
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Bullfighting is a form of animal torture
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Bullfighting is animal torture
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: One form of animal torture is bullfighting
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls
Output: undermine
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Blood sports are not justified by their role in pest control or conservation.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: The need for pest control or conservation does not justify blood sports. 
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Pest control or conservation arguments does not rationalize our use of animals as objects in blood sports.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: The use of animals as objects in blood sports cannot be justified by the week argument that it provides benefit through pest control or conservation.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: When animals are treated as property it prevents them from being perceieved as part of the moral community. 
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Animals are not percieved as part of the moral community when they are treated as property.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Objectifying animals enables people to absolve themselves from their moral treatment.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Animals should not be treated as objects or property as doing so allows them to be treated amorally.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: All uses of animals for entertainment harm the animals.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Even the most innocent of entertainment using animals harms the animals.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Animals as entertainment is always harmful to the animals
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: It is not possible to harmlessly have animals as entertainment
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: The use of animals in sport demeans humans
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Using animals in sport demeans humans. 
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: The use of animals in sport is demeaning to humans. 
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: The devaluation of animals as an object of sport, devalues life including human life.
Output: support
claim: All nations should ban bullfighting.
 perspective: Humans ultimately devalue their own lives when using animals as objects of sport.
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Not a proper holiday
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: There are many opinions about Christmas as a holiday. 
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Many people believe that Christmas is a holiday. Many people think of it as a scam. Who is right?
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: It's not a true holiday.
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: It's not a real holiday.
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Christmas is too commercial and people have forgotten what it is really about
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Christmas is about family and generosity, not buying things.
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Christmas is more important than presents!
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: The spirit of Christmas moves us to give and presents are an expression of that spirit.
Output: support
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Commerce is Necessary for Holidays and Festivals
Output: undermine
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Without commerce our holidays and festivals would cease to exist.
Output: undermine
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Commercialization effectively spreads the culture of holidays and festivals.
Output: undermine
claim: Christmas is a scam.
 perspective: Jesus is Becoming Irrelevant to Christmas
Output: support
claim: The Falklands should be given back to Argentina.
 perspective: Simply put, the Islanders strongly wish to remain British. 
Output: undermine
claim: The Falklands should be given back to Argentina.
 perspective: The Falkland Islanders do not speak Spanish and WANT to be part of the UK
Output: undermine
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: 2.  No - it discourages incentive, increases dependence upon the government, and, if carried too far, impoverishes and oppresses people. 
Output: undermine
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Higher taxes encourage tax avoidance
Output: undermine
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: One problematic outcome is that higher taxes trigger tax avoidance.
Output: undermine
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: The higher the taxes, the more often people will strive to dodge them. 
Output: undermine
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Pays for common programs
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: With an increased standard of living for all the reason for crime would almost disappear.
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: People who enjoy a standard of living that allows them to be healthy and productive will decrease drug abuse.
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Balancing governmental problems for society
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: balancing common deficits of the government for society 
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Balancing governmental deficits for common good of society
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Redistributing wealth to balance the inequality of income disparity
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: It is immoral that some have nothing and a few others are enormously wealthy.
Output: support
claim: Increased taxes are good for America.
 perspective: Everyone should have the resources to live a healthy, productive life.
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Parental consent would create two 'classes’ of pupil.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: The other options to discipline pupils are not helpful.
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Corporal punishment is the appropriate discipline for certain children when used in moderation.
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: used in moderation corperal punishment can be appropriate for certain children
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: certain children can appropriately be diciplined by corpral punishment
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent school environment.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: an unsafe and violent school environment is the affect of corporal punishment
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: corporal punishment will negatively affect the school experience for chiildren
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Corporal punishment is an inappropriate punishment that harms the education of children.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: the education of children will be hindered by corporal punishment
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: it is inappropriate to use corporal punishment on children as it can affect their education
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school.
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: the clear boundaries set by corporal punishment can promote children behaving in school.
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: to motivate children to behave in school try corporal punishment
Output: support
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: Corporal punishment can inflict long-lasting physical and mental harm on students.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: long lasting physical and mental harm can be caused by corporal punishment
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent.
 perspective: by using corporal punishment you can cause serious mental and physical damage
Output: undermine
claim: Treat the desecration and destruction of high-value sites and property of cultural heritage as a crime against humanity.
 perspective: Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.
Output: support
claim: Treat the desecration and destruction of high-value sites and property of cultural heritage as a crime against humanity.
 perspective: Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity. 
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: The law would violate freedom of speech and association. 
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Banning electronic use would violate freedoms.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Freedoms would be limited with this law.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: It is easy to act in an inappropriate manner with electronic communications.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct. 
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media enables "sexting," which can lead to criminal charges and the unexpected proliferation of personal images.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Many young people talk sexually through social media.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: If you are not careful, sexting can be a start of criminal activity.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: More educational resources can be made available through social media.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media provides academic research to a wider audience, allowing many people access to previously unavailable educational resources.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can be powerful educational resources. 
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social medica can act as an educational tool.
Output: undermine
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can lead to stress and offline relationship problems.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media sites often lead to relationship problems and other stress in real life.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media has been linked to stress and problems in personal relationships in the real world.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Using social media can harm students' chances for college admission.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media use can harm students' chances to be admitted to colleges
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can damage students' chances of admission to colleges
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media sites' advertising practices may constitute an invasion of privacy.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media sites' advertising practices might invade peoples' privacy.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media sites can have advertising practices that are an invasion to privacy.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can facilitate inappropriate student-teacher relationships.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can cause inappropriate student-teacher relations.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media can start inappropriate student-teacher problems.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media facilitates cyberbullying.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Many people use social media to bully people.
Output: support
claim: Teachers must be banned from interacting with students via social networking websites.
 perspective: Social media enables people to bully others online.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: Many refugees are highly educated people who can contribute to our societies
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: Many refugees have much to offer to our societies.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: We have so much, we should give to those who don't
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: We should be charitable.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: When you have an abundance of something you should give to those who do not share in your fortune.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: It is our moral duty to give to the less-fortunate
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: We are morally obligated to help the needy.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: We are duty bound to aid the less fortunate.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: It's what our country was built on
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: This is a founding principal of our country.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: Our country holds considers this very important.
Output: support
claim: Developed Countries Should Accept More Refugees.
 perspective: The government has to take care of the problems in that nation first
Output: undermine
claim: In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.
 perspective: It would create instability and logistical problems
Output: undermine
claim: In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.
 perspective: The concept overestimates the role of the Prime Minister
Output: undermine
claim: We must hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.
 perspective: The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns 
Output: support
claim: We must hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.
 perspective: The current political system is hugely expensive, and a national primary could control the scale of spending in campaigns.
Output: support
claim: We must hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.
 perspective: The current system is very expensive so having a national primary could control the spending scale in campaigns.
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: The Armed Forces are less than honest
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: All the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students.
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Children are too young to decide for themselves
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Children in school aren't old enough to make this decision for themselves.
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Children in school are to young to make such a life altering decision for themselves.
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Children are vulnerable to influences
Output: undermine
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: The Armed Forces need recruits
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Recruits are needed for the Armed Forces to continue to be a powerful force. 
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Recruits are needed for the Armed Forces to be successful. 
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: The Armed Forces are a legitimate career option
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: Joining the Military is a good option as a career.
Output: support
claim: We should allow military recruiting in schools.
 perspective: The Armed Forces provides many career choices and is a legitimate decision. 
Output: support
claim: Make-up is bad for us.
 perspective: Animal-products, alcohol and their derivates are not good for the skin
Output: support
claim: Make-up is bad for us.
 perspective: Products derived from animals are not good for our skin.
Output: support
claim: Make-up is bad for us.
 perspective: Products derived from alcohol are not good for health.
Output: support
claim: It is a good idea to lease Crimea to Russia.
 perspective: Russia gets what it wants
Output: support
claim: It is a good idea to lease Crimea to Russia.
 perspective: Why would Ukraine trust a lease when the previous one was violated?
Output: undermine
claim: It is a good idea to lease Crimea to Russia.
 perspective: Does not provide guarantees for the protection of other Russian minorities
Output: undermine
claim: It is a good idea to lease Crimea to Russia.
 perspective: Helps Ukraine financially
Output: support
claim: It is a good idea to lease Crimea to Russia.
 perspective: A peaceful solution
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Giving Out Personal Information Is Dangerous
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Under the age of 14, it is too dangerous to have a facebook account because it is dangerous to display personal information.
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: It is possible that can be put in danger if they give out too much information
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: There could be dangerous consequences even the wrong information is revealed
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Facebook will become another web-based venue for sexual predators fishing for jailbait
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: It is unsafe for children to have facebook accounts because of personal information dissemination.
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Personal identifiers are the reason children should not have facebook accounts.
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: It can be a potentially  dangerous mistake to give out personal info
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: There can be terrible consequences if you give out personal info
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: The smallest bit of information could be harmful
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: It is wrong for children to have facebook accounts because it is too easy, hence dangerous to get information about them.
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: The ease of obtaining even minimal information about a facebook user is why children should not have a facebook account.
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Even giving out a little information can be dangerous
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: There can be harm even if you don't reveal that much info
Output: undermine
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Parental control, privacy settings and look at Myspace/Youtube
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts because privacy settings and parental conrols protect the children.
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Parental controls and setting privacy parameters in facebook are readons children should be allowed to have a facebook account.
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: There are ways to monitor like using parental control and privacy settings
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Features like parental control and privacy settings make it easier
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: If there's parental control and they use proper privacy settings . 
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Parental controls and privacy settings should be activated 
Output: support
claim: Children should be allowed to have facebook accounts.
 perspective: Facebook cannot monitor all users nor validate user information
Output: undermine
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: The reconciliation process provides access to justice in post conflict states
Output: support
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: Truth and reconciliation process paving way for justice
Output: support
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: reconciliation helps with justice
Output: support
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: Reconciliation can be used to conceal political corruption and patrimony
Output: undermine
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: reconciliation can be used for political corruption
Output: undermine
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: reconciliation can help to conceal corruption
Output: undermine
claim: We must support the use of truth and reconciliation commissions.
 perspective: Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Rico would benefit economically from statehood
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Statehood would be an economic benefit for Puerto Rico.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Statehood would bring economic gains to Puerto Rico. 
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Statehood is economically beneficial.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Rico would have a better economy  if it were a state.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Ricans deserve full political rights and citizenship
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Residents of Puerto Rico deserve the full political rights and citizenship of other Americans.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Ricans should have political rights and citizenship status equal to other Americans.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Ricans should be US citizens.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Peurto Rico should be an American state.
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: English is not a problem for Puerto Rican statehood
Output: support
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Rican statehood is not economical for the US
Output: undermine
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Puerto Rican statehood will not benefit the US economically.
Output: undermine
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Making Puerto Rico a state is not a good economic decision for the US. 
Output: undermine
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: Becoming a state would hurt the other 50 states.
Output: undermine
claim: Puerto Rico should seek American statehood.
 perspective: It would be better for the US if Puerto Rico does not become a state. 
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: A missilie defense system is a pricey gamble.
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Every country, including the United States, has a sovereign right to defend itself with every available means necessary
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself by all means necessary
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: A missile defense shield is a good alternative to a nuclear defense.
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Missile defense is less dangerous than having a nuclear arsenal.
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: It is easier to target specific areas with a missile defense.
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: World security is threatened by employing a missile defense.
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Ballistic missile attacks can be counteracted by a missile defense shield.
Output: support
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: The political consequences of the system make the world less safe
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: There are potential dangers to taking this action.
Output: undermine
claim: It is crucial to support the development of a missile defence system.
 perspective: Politics involved in this system put world safety in jeopardy.
Output: undermine
claim: South Africa should host an Olympics.
 perspective: Economic benefits
Output: support
claim: South Africa should host an Olympics.
 perspective: National “feel-good factor”
Output: support
claim: South Africa should host an Olympics.
 perspective: "Feel-good factor" can be national.
Output: support
claim: South Africa should host an Olympics.
 perspective: Showcase for a nation and continent
Output: support
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: 'God' is merely a concept designed to promote a set of values
Output: undermine
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: People think that a benevolent God cannot exist because bad things happen...
Output: undermine
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: If there is a god, its the sun.
Output: undermine
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: Life is ridiculous without a God.  Belief in God is the only sane thing we discuss.
Output: support
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: Science can support the existance of God
Output: support
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: According to Probability - a creator exists
Output: support
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: God teaches forgiveness and love: an idea universally agreed upon as good.
Output: support
claim: There is a good case for stating that there is a God.
 perspective: God is a concept dreamed up by optimistic people.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: No harm to non-drug users
Output: support
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: If you have nothing to hide a random drug test is not a big deal.
Output: support
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: If you are not using drugs, a drug test is not invasive.
Output: support
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: School's duty of care
Output: support
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: Right to privacy
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: Drug testing without probable cause is invasive.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: Students have a right to privacy.
Output: undermine
claim: It is fine to do random drug-testing in schools.
 perspective: Prevent drug use
Output: support
claim: The law on self defence should cover ‘grossly disproportionate’ actions.
 perspective: We should not allow state sponsored revenge
Output: undermine
claim: The law on self defence should cover ‘grossly disproportionate’ actions.
 perspective: There is already enough leeway in the law of self defence.
Output: undermine
claim: The law on self defence should cover ‘grossly disproportionate’ actions.
 perspective: The cases of burglars needs to be dealt with
Output: support
claim: The law on self defence should cover ‘grossly disproportionate’ actions.
 perspective: We should be able to protect our homes from intruders
Output: support
claim: Tunisia should not rely on tourism for economic growth.
 perspective: Produces Employment
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: While both people and animals both suffer, most animals suffer more than people do.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Most animals can suffer more than some people
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: People can suffer, but most animals can suffer more. 
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are treated well during animal testing. 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Research animals are well treated 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals don’t have human rights
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals don't have rights.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Harming animals is a bad thing.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals shouldn't be put through harmful situations.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are severely harmed by research done on them.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: When research is done on animals, it causes them severe harm.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals shouldn’t be harmed
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Testing is needed for really new drugs
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: We need to be able to test drugs on animals.  
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal research is only used when it’s needed
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: We try to only use animal testing when it is needed.  
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Sometimes we have no other choices for Animal research, but then to do some animal testing. 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal research ensures greater safety for humans
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Without animal research, we would have fewer products
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal research has played a vital role in a great many of the major medical advances of the last century
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: There are no satisfactory alternatives to animal research
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal testing is cruel and inhumane.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Most animals that are used in scientific testing have better lives. 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. 
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Number 2 is a lie, there ARE alternatives to animal testing! Other companies use them, and animal testing doesnt prove anything, because although close, they arent people.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are the only choice for testing. 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. 
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety.
Output: undermine
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Medical breakthroughs can be achieved without doing any scientific or commercial experiment on animals 
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act.
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: many companies get accurate results without testing on animals
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal testing dosen't ensure good results
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: Animal experiments retard medical progress due to providing misleading results
Output: support
claim: Animal testing should be banned.
 perspective: animal experiments are not always accurate
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: video cannot catch all plays at a game
Output: undermine
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Games can benefit from correct calls thanks to instant replay.
Output: support
claim: Instant Replay Should Be Used in Major League Baseball.
 perspective: Wins and losses matter, so does the instant replay. It matters to get things right.
Output: support