niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: Compensation has the potential to reverse damaged caused by Cultural Appropriation.
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: cultural appropriation damage can potentialy be reversed through compensation
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: compensation may be able to reverse damage caused by culture appropriation
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve. 
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: it is immportant for the communities to get the credit they deserve through compensation
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: compensation is a way to give the communities the credit they deserve
Output: support
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: Reparations and the use of the term 'cultural appropriation' is a mask for more deep-rooted issues of racism in society. 
Output: undermine
claim: Compensation should be paid for those who have had their culture appropriated.
 perspective: No feasible system of which grounds of compensation can occur because of the fluidity of culture and cultural identity
Output: undermine
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits
Output: undermine
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: This problem prevents the university from being self-sufficient and funding less profitable projects.
Output: undermine
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: The university is unable to be sustainable and fund other profitable pursuits because of this problem.
Output: undermine
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public
Output: support
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development
Output: support
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: We can futher the research and development of these projects by giving more information to the public.
Output: support
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: If we are willing to give our customers and consumers more company information, then we are able to persue our development and research on projects.
Output: support
claim: State funding to universities have to be conditioned upon all academic work being made available to the general public.
 perspective: A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: What if a doctor decides to 'let you go' to get an organ?
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: Some people will be distressed by the removal of their loved-ones’ organs
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: Most people support organ donation, only a few carry the card
Output: support
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: What if your loved-one was a recipient?
Output: support
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: What use are organs to you when you’re dead?
Output: support
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: It will be difficult to opt-out
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: Other countries that have it have not seen a direct increase in donation.
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: According other countries, it hasn't increased donation.
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: There's no direct correlation  with other countries showing an increase in donations.
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: new ways should be expolred to attract people to be organ donors.
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: organ donation cannot be made compulsory
Output: undermine
claim: Everyone Should Automatically Be Opted into an Organ Donation Scheme.
 perspective: organ donation is a good thing
Output: support
claim: It makes sense to drive to an out of town to a shopping centre.
 perspective: Out of town retail developments are bad for the environment
Output: undermine
claim: It makes sense to drive to an out of town to a shopping centre.
 perspective: Out of town malls damage town centres
Output: undermine
claim: It makes sense to drive to an out of town to a shopping centre.
 perspective: Out of town malls can hinder the development of downtown areas.
Output: undermine
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: A moral duty to play for your country
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: A sense of moral obligation to play for your country.
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: A civilly moral obligation to play for your country.
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: Playing for your country is a mortal duty. 
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: A mortal duty requires you to play for your country.
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: Beneficial for the player 
Output: support
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: There is no need for compulsion 
Output: undermine
claim: Professional sportsmen must be required to represent their countries at the international level.
 perspective: Benefits to the nation
Output: support
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Danger to students
Output: support
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Universities are bastions of free expression
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Universities allow for free expression.
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Free expression is common at universities.
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Freedom of expression is a means to education
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Freedom of expression is a political right
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Free expression is an inalienable right.
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: Political rights include freedom of expression.
Output: undermine
claim: Hate speech on campus has to censored.
 perspective: The marketplace of ideas
Output: undermine
claim: Healthy eating should be made mandatory.
 perspective: Too hard to enforce
Output: undermine
claim: Healthy eating should be made mandatory.
 perspective: It is too difficult to govern.
Output: undermine
claim: Healthy eating should be made mandatory.
 perspective: Enforcement is nearly impossible. 
Output: undermine
claim: Healthy eating should be made mandatory.
 perspective: There is no one healthy diet
Output: undermine
claim: Healthy eating should be made mandatory.
 perspective: Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating
Output: support
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: You have to treat people differently in order to reach equality
Output: undermine
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: Positive discrimination towards women should not be allowed
Output: support
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: Positive discrimination towards women should be allowed
Output: undermine
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: It is right to treated women differently than men in some cases. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: Due to physical difference between men and women, it's ok to have some positive discrimination towards women. 
Output: undermine
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: Positive discrimination for women is discrimination
Output: support
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice
Output: support
claim: Gender Equality is Treating Men and Women in the Same Way.
 perspective: Positive discrimination takes away voters' freedom of choice by limiting their choices to women
Output: support
claim: Catcher in the Rye is a bad book.
 perspective: The book is too long
Output: support
claim: Catcher in the Rye is a bad book.
 perspective: The book is depressing
Output: support
claim: Wikileaks is not and has never been a non-profit organization.
 perspective: Wikileaks is not registered. 
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: ICC treats Africa differently
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: ICC is biased against Africans 
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: The ICC is against African ideals.
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: The ICC is in direct opposition of African beliefs. 
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: The ICC has an anti-African bias
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address
Output: support
claim: Create an African Criminal Court.
 perspective: Africa has a strong voice in the ICC 
Output: undermine
claim: Only buildings that are historically important should be preserved.
 perspective: Tastes change over time
Output: undermine
claim: Mixed Martial Arts (UFC) is a form of human cockfighting.
 perspective: Depending where you are in the world, some of the rules do appear brutal
Output: support
claim: Mixed Martial Arts (UFC) is a form of human cockfighting.
 perspective: MMA is Human Cock Fighting
Output: support
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available
Output: support
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses
Output: undermine
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation
Output: undermine
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative
Output: support
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Storing nuclear waste underground is safer than any other storage method.
Output: support
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: The best place to store nuclear waste is underground.
Output: support
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive
Output: undermine
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: Storing nuclear waste underground is very expensive.
Output: undermine
claim: Store nuclear waste underground.
 perspective: It's very costly to store nuclear waste underground.
Output: undermine
claim: We should support universal basic income.
 perspective: Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of needed targeted support
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Minority cultures must have self-determination to succeed.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Without self-determination, minority cultures cannot be protected.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Individual democratic rights are more important than collective self-determination.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: The rights of the individual in democracies is more important than collective self-determination.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination is about deciding your own fate.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: All peoples have a fundamental right to determine their own future.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Without self-determination, some disputes are unsolvable.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination is how we resolve some intractable issues.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.
Output: support
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Universal human rights makes self-determination less important.
Output: undermine
claim: Self-determination of peoples is a human right.
 perspective: Self-determination is irrelevant in the era of universal human rights.
Output: undermine
claim: The expenditure of money should be protected as speech.
 perspective: Money is intrinsic to political speech.
Output: support
claim: The expenditure of money should be protected as speech.
 perspective: Money stifles, it does not advance debate. 
Output: undermine
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Google wins as newspapers battle 
Output: support
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Infighting among newspapers has led to a boom for google information.
Output: support
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: As newspaper battle each other over credibility users turn to google for the news.
Output: support
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Use google as a way to find multiple sources of agreeing information.
Output: support
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Google dependency is risky business
Output: undermine
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Google throttles some information so depending on it is risky.
Output: undermine
claim: Google is the extremely reliable source of information.
 perspective: Google promotes what makes it money so dependence on it for reliable information has risks.
Output: undermine
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: There is a sense of natural justice that corrections should come in this form rather than a tiny note.
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: Anyone can respond to critique.
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: Protests are a natural form of response.
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: natural justice should not come by a note
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: justice that is natural should not come in the form of a tiny note
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: It is only fair where something inaccurate has been said to allow for a correction.
Output: support
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: This undermines actual parity by creating a false sense of the right to reply.
Output: undermine
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: Persons should not be dissuaded from response. 
Output: undermine
claim: We believe in the right to reply.
 perspective: This will undermine real parity by making a false sense of the right to reply
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: there is nothing illegal in the use of drones
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are legal under international law. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: We should take advantage of the fact that drone strikes are legal 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones are acceptable to use under International Law
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Strikes Are Legal under International Law
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Strikes Are Carried Out with the support of Local Governments and Make Those Countries Safer.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of local governments, and make those countries safer. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Local governments allow the US to use drones to make their countries safer.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are allowed by local governments who believe it makes their countries more safe.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes can protect foreign countries in collaboration with the local governments.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes abroad ensures the safety of foreign countries.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective:  The Majority of Americans Support Drone Strikes
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are cheaper than engaging in ground or manned aerial combat. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: drones are far more cost effective that whole military units
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones are less costly than fighting with soldiers
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: It is cheaper to use drones rather than send soldiers
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Use is Cheaper than Engaging in Ground or Manned Aerial Combat
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The US cannot Risk Lagging Behind the Rest of the World in the Development of These Technologies.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The United States cannot risk falling behind the rest of the world in the development of drone technologies. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Operators Have a Lower Risk for PTSD than Other Military Personnel.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones make US military personnel safer. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: fewer troops are exposed to dangers when drones are employed
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones protect our military from enemies
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones Keep US Military Personnel Safer
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Strikes Are Legal under US Law
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: US law allows for drone strikes.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: There is nothing illegal about drone strikes under US law.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes operations are deemed legal by US law.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: United States law endorses drone strikes. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are legal under US law. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: drones are able to be more focused limiting collateral damage
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: drones can be a more precise weapon
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: It has been proved that the use of Drone to combat enemy activity has resulted in fewer casualties amongst the civilian population as compared to the usage of other weapons
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The use of Drones to combat enemy actions and terrorism will be an effective method to face enemies and stop terrorism .
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drones Result in Fewer Civilian Fatalities than Other Weapons.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone Strikes Make the United States Safer by Destroying Terrorist Networks Internationally.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: International Terrorist Networks can be destroyed by having Drone Strikes in the United States. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Continuing with the Drone Strikes in the United States , would combat any Terrorists Network and plan to attack the country 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are subject to a strict review process and congressional oversight. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes target individuals who may not be terrorists or enemy combatants. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Unmanned drone attacks may harm innocent civilians.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: United States drone strikes include collateral damage.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes may victimize non-threats.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The innocent may be harmed my drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Many drone operators have emotional and psychological stress. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Operating drones results in a great deal of mental and emotional stress.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone operators often suffer from psychological and emotional strain.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Terrorists are created by drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes tend to increase the membership of terrorist organizations.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes can't reduce the number of terrorists. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are secretive, lack sufficient legal oversight, and prevent citizens from holding their leaders accountable. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Secrecy prevents accountability for drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: There are many reasons why drones lack sufficient oversight to be of moral value.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The use of drones removes accountability from their leaders.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks across the world. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes violate the sovereignty of other countries. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes infringe upon the rights of other nations.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets who are not significant threats to US safety and security. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Those targeted by drone strikes are mostly insignificant to national security.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes tend to only kill low value targets.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes violate international law. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The use of unmanned drone attacks is inconsistent with international laws.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: International laws are violated by drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: International law is violated by drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The use of drones conflicts with international law
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes kill large numbers of civilians and traumatize local populations. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Civilians are traumatized and often killed by United States drone strikes.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes cause a significant amount of localized trauma.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes are a major threat to individuals, both physically and psychologically.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone strikes have done serious harm to civilians, partially through promoting emotional terror.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The majority of Americans support drone strikes. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: American citizens approve of drone strikes.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Most US citizens approve of military drones.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Most people in the U.S. support the use of drone strikes.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: According to survey, most U.S. citizens support drone strikes.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone pilots have a lower risk for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than pilots of manned aircraft and other battlefield soldiers. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: PTSD is much less prevalent amonst drone pilots than those who participate in traditional warfare.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: The incidence of PTSD is lower amonst drone pilots than those who pilot manned aircraft or fight on the battlefield.
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Drone pilots have lesser chance of getting PTSD than other aircraft pilots. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: Using drones can reduce the chance of pilots getting PTSD in operations. 
Output: support
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: US drone strikes give cover for other countries to engage in human rights abuses. 
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: U.S. drone strikes enable other nations to violate human rights.
Output: undermine
claim: Drones Should Be Used to Take Out Enemy Combatants.
 perspective: When the U.S. uses drone strikes abroad, it gives those nations permission to participate in human rights infringement.
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets. 
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Property has no bearing on women's wealth.
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles will help end violence against women. 
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Because of land titles, violence against women would come to an end.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles would help protect women from violence.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles are not affordable to poor women
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women. 
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: More women would become entrepreneurs because of land titles.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles would mean that more women could become entrepreneurs.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles for women today will provide inter-generational equalities for the future.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Giving land titles to women now would lead to an equal playing field in the future.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: In the future, women would have more equality if they are given land titles today.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titling will increase female poverty. 
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Owning land will put women in poverty.
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Women get poor through land ownership.
Output: undermine
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Single women could build good homes with land titles.
Output: support
claim: Legal empowerment is provided for women through land titling.
 perspective: Women who are not married would be able to get a decent home thanks to land titles.
Output: support
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Offshoring exploits both individual workers and under developed states.
Output: undermine
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: There are multiple negative effects of offshoring.
Output: undermine
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Underdeveloped states and workers are harmed by this practice.
Output: undermine
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Offshore outsourcing is consistent with existing labour distribution patterns.
Output: support
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Outsourcing follows the current labor distribution model.
Output: support
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Offshore outsourcing reduces living standards and limits social mobility.
Output: undermine
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Social mobility is negatively impacted by offshore outsourcing.
Output: undermine
claim: Offshoring is a good idea.
 perspective: Living standards decline and is just one example of the cons of offshore outsourcing.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Evolution undermines meaning and morality
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Evolution has taken away the stories that create morals and meaning to many people.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Evolution does not explain morals or guidelines to a way of life.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: The fossil evidence
Output: support
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Creationism has been dispproved because of the evidence of fossils.
Output: support
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Creationism can't explain the fossil record.
Output: support
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: The Bible says God created the world
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Creationism has theoretical answers to questions evolution can't answer.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Evolution cannot answer irreducible complexity like Creationism can.
Output: undermine
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.
Output: support
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
Output: support
claim: Evolution has Disproved Creationism.
 perspective: Creationism isn't supported by the scientific community.
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. 
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: For the quality of education given it is a small price to pay.
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: You would be paying a small price for the quality of education given.
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: Tuition fees were only increased a few years ago. 
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: It will discourage people from getting a higher education.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: People getting a higher education will be discouraged.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: People will be discouraged and not want to get a higher education.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: It will increase the tension and the gap between rich and poor. 
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: The tension between rich and poor will be increased.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: Tensions will rise between the rich and the poor.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: The recession is torturing students enough.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: Students are being tortured enough by the recession.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: Enough students have been tortured by the recession.
Output: undermine
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: More money will pumped into the economy, helping to overcome the recession. 
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: The recession can be overcome by more money in the economy.
Output: support
claim: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased.
 perspective: A way to overcome the recession is by putting more money into the economy.
Output: support
claim: African borders must be redefined to reflect ethnic groups.
 perspective: Damages dreams of African unity
Output: undermine
claim: African borders must be redefined to reflect ethnic groups.
 perspective: The goal of Damages is to create African unity. 
Output: undermine
claim: African borders must be redefined to reflect ethnic groups.
 perspective: African unity is the hope of Damages.
Output: undermine
claim: African borders must be redefined to reflect ethnic groups.
 perspective: Ethnic borders erase a wrong of history
Output: support
claim: African borders must be redefined to reflect ethnic groups.
 perspective: Ethnic borders return societies to their logical segments and undoes the inequity that was artificially created.  
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child
Output: undermine
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: For those who can't conceive, cloning should be an option.
Output: undermine
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Cloning should be acceptable if people cannot have children.
Output: undermine
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Cloning is unsafe
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Since it is considered unsafe, human cloning should be banned.
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Given the fact that it is currently unsafe, it is in the public's best interest to ban human cloning.
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Cloning harms families
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Families are harmed with cloning
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: In order to protect families, human cloning should be banned.
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Banning human cloning would be one way to protect families from harm.
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Cloning violates human dignity
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Human dignity is definitely violated with Cloning.
Output: support
claim: Human Cloning has to be banned.
 perspective: Violations to the dignified human occur with cloning.
Output: support
claim: Guinea-Bissau should not let itself be turned in to a front of the US’ "war on drugs".
 perspective: Sacrifice of sovereignty 
Output: support
claim: Guinea-Bissau should not let itself be turned in to a front of the US’ "war on drugs".
 perspective: War on the poor 
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Imposing pressure on a child performer to perform is unethical.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Many consider it unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing. 
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Children shouldn't be pressured into performing.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Exposing children to performance pressure is unethical.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: The children should have the final say on whether they want to do it or not.
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: The government should not interfere  in a child's decision.
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: the government cannot protect children from entertaining
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: performers are at risk of exploitation
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: There exists the possibility that child performers can be exploited. 
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Some child performers may be exploited by industry executives.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Child performers might be exploited.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: There is a risk that child performers might be exploited.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Being a performer limits a child’s formal education
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: A child performer's formal education is limited by their work.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Work puts limits on the formal education received by a child performer.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: A child's education is hampered by performing.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: When a child works as a performer, their education suffers.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Child performers are often pushed to grow up too soon.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Children that perform are often pushed to grow up too soon.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Children grow up too fast when they're performers.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Being a performer forces a child to grow up too fast.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Child performers are the only people who fit some of these roles
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: The child actors are the ones who can carry certain shows
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Child performers help films and sports
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: child performers are good for movies and shows
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Even if banned, child performers would still be hired, although now without protection.
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: if performing children were banned, some would perform illegally 
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: if children were banned from performing, some would do it anyways
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: There will always be child actors but by not banning them at least there will be some protection for them
Output: undermine
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: A child becomes physically vulnerable when they become a child performer.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: It can make a child physically vulnerable to be a child performer.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Working as a performer can make a child vulnerable.
Output: support
claim: The use of child performers should be banned.
 perspective: Physical vulnerability might be a factor in being a child performer
Output: support
claim: The Uhuru Kenyatta indictment was an unwelcome interference by the ICC.
 perspective: Kenya can prosecute these crimes itself
Output: undermine
claim: It should be allowed to patent genes.
 perspective: Genes are intellectual property thus patentable
Output: support