Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards-SFT

like 0

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: NoKo doesn’t care.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "**edited for language\n\nHowever, all the data points over many decades — including North Korea’s hostile relationship with the United States and South Korea, its experience of U.S. carpet-bombing during the Korean War, the constant threat of a U.S. nuclear attack, the dilapidated state of North Korea’s conventional military, the cost-effective nature of investing in nuclear weapons versus conventional military assets, the prestige provided by being one of only nine countries with nuclear weapons, the experience of other countries being toppled or threatened after giving up their nuclear weapons, the incomparable strength of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and the general paranoid [fearful] nature of the Kim regime — suggest that North Korea will not disarm in the short, medium and probably long-term.\nNot surprisingly, the U.S. intelligence community assesses North Korea will not abandon its nuclear weapons.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "all the data points over many decades\nincluding No\nKo\n’s hostile relationship with the U\nS\nand So\nKo\ndilapidated state of No\nKo\n’s conventional military\ncost-effective nature of investing in nuc\ns versus conventional military assets\nprestige provided by being one of only nine countries with nuc\ns, the experience of other countries being toppled\nafter giving up\nnuc\ns\nincomparable strength of nuc\ns as a deterrent, and the\nfearful\nnature of the Kim regime\nsuggest that No\nKo\nwill not disarm in the short, medium and probably long-term\nNo\nKo\nwill not abandon its nuc\ns", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: NoKo doesn’t care.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "all the data points over many decades\nincluding No\nKo\n’s hostile relationship with the U\nS\nand So\nKo\ndilapidated state of No\nKo\n’s conventional military\ncost-effective nature of investing in nuc\ns versus conventional military assets\nprestige provided by being one of only nine countries with nuc\ns, the experience of other countries being toppled\nafter giving up\nnuc\ns\nincomparable strength of nuc\ns as a deterrent, and the\nfearful\nnature of the Kim regime\nsuggest that No\nKo\nwill not disarm in the short, medium and probably long-term\nNo\nKo\nwill not abandon its nuc\ns", "role": "user" }, { "content": "data points\nmany decades\nNo\nKo\n’s hostile\nU\nS\nSo\nKo\ndilapidated\nNo\nKo\n’s conventional\nnuc\ns\nconventional military assets\nprestige\none\nwith nuc\ns\ntoppled\ngiving up\nnuc\ns\nincomparable strength\nnuc\ns\ndeterrent\nfearful\nNo\nKo\nnot disarm\nshort\nmedium\nlong-term\nNo\nKo\nnot abandon\nnuc\ns", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: NoKo doesn’t care.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "all the data points over many decades\nincluding No\nKo\n’s hostile relationship with the U\nS\nand So\nKo\ndilapidated state of No\nKo\n’s conventional military\ncost-effective nature of investing in nuc\ns versus conventional military assets\nprestige provided by being one of only nine countries with nuc\ns, the experience of other countries being toppled\nafter giving up\nnuc\ns\nincomparable strength of nuc\ns as a deterrent, and the\nfearful\nnature of the Kim regime\nsuggest that No\nKo\nwill not disarm in the short, medium and probably long-term\nNo\nKo\nwill not abandon its nuc\ns", "role": "user" }, { "content": "all\ndata\nincluding No\nKo\n’s hostile relationship with the U\nS\nand So\nKo\ndilapidated\nconventional military\ncost-effective nature of\nnuc\ns versus conventional\nprestige provided\nother countries being toppled\nafter giving up\nnuc\ns\nstrength of nuc\ndeterrent, and the\nfearful\nnature of the\nregime\nsuggest that No\nKo\nwill not disarm", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncertainty alone checks.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "This upper bound on cyber attack is affected by the likelihood of attribution. If an attacker was confident that it could avoid having the attack attributed to it, the risk of retaliation would be reduced, making some attacks more attractive. Uncertainty about attribution capabilities, particularly American capabilities, combined with uncertainty about the effectiveness of cyber attack, creates caution. Public expressions of uncertainty about attribution are not shared by opponents, who know when they have been caught. Over the last decade, the United States has made a major effort to improve its attribution capabilities and has succeeded to the point where no opponent can be confident about anonymity and this, if linked to truly credible threats to impose consequences, may finally produce the cyber deterrence so long sought by the United States. \nThe implicit threshold governing cyber attack is the line between force and coercion. With very few exceptions, states have avoided cyber actions that could be judged as the use of force, based on international understandings on what actions qualify as the use of force or armed attack. Opponents have engaged in cyber actions below this implicit threshold with impunity, but they are reluctant to cross it for fear of creating a situation that they cannot control. In this, cyber incidents are more like border incursions or bandit raids than attacks.\nPublic sources suggest that at least seven countries have used cyber tools for coercive purposes. However, they have been careful to avoid anything that could be interpreted as the use of force, and they have avoided physical destruction or casualties. This suggests that countries prefer actions that advance their strategic goals without creating unmanageable risk of escalation into armed conflict. Opponents calculate the advantage they would gain from an attack against the potential cost. Miscalculation is possible, but if anything, opponents appear more likely to overestimate the risk of retaliation. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "This upper bound on cyber attack is affected by the likelihood of attribution\nUncertainty about attribution capabilities\nparticularly American capabilities, combined with uncertainty about the effectiveness of cyber attack, creates caution. Public expressions of uncertainty about attribution are not shared by opponents, who know when they have been caught. Over the last decade, the U\nS\nhas made a major effort to improve its attribution capabilities and has succeeded to the point where no opponent can be confident about anonymity and this\nmay\nproduce the cyber deterrence so long sought by the U\nS\nstates have avoided cyber actions that could be judged as the use of force\nOpponents have engaged in cyber actions below this implicit threshold with impunity, but they are reluctant to cross it for fear of creating a situation that they cannot control\nat least seven countries have used cyber tools for coercive purposes\nthey have been careful to avoid anything that could be interpreted as the use of force\nand they have avoided physical destruction or casualties\ncountries prefer actions that advance their strategic goals without creating unmanageable risk of escalation into armed conflict\nMiscalculation is possible\nbut if anything, opponents appear more likely to overestimate the risk of retaliation", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncertainty alone checks.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "This upper bound on cyber attack is affected by the likelihood of attribution\nUncertainty about attribution capabilities\nparticularly American capabilities, combined with uncertainty about the effectiveness of cyber attack, creates caution. Public expressions of uncertainty about attribution are not shared by opponents, who know when they have been caught. Over the last decade, the U\nS\nhas made a major effort to improve its attribution capabilities and has succeeded to the point where no opponent can be confident about anonymity and this\nmay\nproduce the cyber deterrence so long sought by the U\nS\nstates have avoided cyber actions that could be judged as the use of force\nOpponents have engaged in cyber actions below this implicit threshold with impunity, but they are reluctant to cross it for fear of creating a situation that they cannot control\nat least seven countries have used cyber tools for coercive purposes\nthey have been careful to avoid anything that could be interpreted as the use of force\nand they have avoided physical destruction or casualties\ncountries prefer actions that advance their strategic goals without creating unmanageable risk of escalation into armed conflict\nMiscalculation is possible\nbut if anything, opponents appear more likely to overestimate the risk of retaliation", "role": "user" }, { "content": "upper bound\nattribution\nUncertainty\nattribution capabilities\nAmerican\neffectiveness\ncaution\nuncertainty\nnot shared by opponents\nknow\nmajor effort to improve its attribution capabilities\nsucceeded\nno opponent can be confident about anonymity\ncyber deterrence\navoided\nreluctant to cross it\nfear\ncannot control\nseven countries\ncoercive purposes\navoid\nuse of force\navoided physical destruction\ncasualties\nwithout creating unmanageable risk of escalation\npossible\nif anything\nmore likely\noverestimate", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Uncertainty alone checks.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "This upper bound on cyber attack is affected by the likelihood of attribution\nUncertainty about attribution capabilities\nparticularly American capabilities, combined with uncertainty about the effectiveness of cyber attack, creates caution. Public expressions of uncertainty about attribution are not shared by opponents, who know when they have been caught. Over the last decade, the U\nS\nhas made a major effort to improve its attribution capabilities and has succeeded to the point where no opponent can be confident about anonymity and this\nmay\nproduce the cyber deterrence so long sought by the U\nS\nstates have avoided cyber actions that could be judged as the use of force\nOpponents have engaged in cyber actions below this implicit threshold with impunity, but they are reluctant to cross it for fear of creating a situation that they cannot control\nat least seven countries have used cyber tools for coercive purposes\nthey have been careful to avoid anything that could be interpreted as the use of force\nand they have avoided physical destruction or casualties\ncountries prefer actions that advance their strategic goals without creating unmanageable risk of escalation into armed conflict\nMiscalculation is possible\nbut if anything, opponents appear more likely to overestimate the risk of retaliation", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Uncertainty about attribution\ncombined with uncertainty about\neffectiveness\ncreates caution\nthe U\nS\nmade a major effort to improve\nattribution\nand has succeeded to\nwhere no opponent can be confident\nthis\nmay\nproduce\ncyber deterrence\nopponents appear\nlikely to overestimate the risk of retal", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The OLC merely provides advice without dictating a policy to adopt.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "OLC opinions might seem to qualify as statements of policy or interpretation. But the critical aspect of both categories of documents is their “formulat[ion] and adopt[ion] by the agency for the guidance of the public.” See Attorney General’s Manual, supra, at 22 (emphasis added).\nThough FOIA’s affirmative disclosure provisions fail to define “statements of policy” and “interpretation,” they complement the APA’s “notice-and-comment” requirements for informal rulemaking in 5 U.S.C. §553. Section 553 exempts statements of policy and interpretive rules from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, including publication in the Federal Register. FOIA’s affirmative disclosure provision requires an agency that chooses not to publish a statement of policy or interpretation in the Federal Register to make such statements publicly available by other means. This account of the relationship between § 553 and § 552(a)(2) explains the affirmative disclosure provision’s distinct treatment of staff manuals, which are explicitly made subject to affirmative disclosure only if they effect members of the general public. Compare §552(a)(2)(C), with §552(a)(2)(B). Such a qualification is unnecessary with respect to statements of policy and interpretations, which, by definition, are issued to guide the public.\nIn explicating § 553, the Attorney General’s Manual also makes clear that only documents that provide guidance to the public qualify as statements of policy or interpretations. The Attorney General’s Manual defines interpretive rules as “rules or statements issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” Attorney General’s Manual, supra, at 30 n.3. Thus, the statement’s purpose must be to advise the public regarding the agency’s interpretation. And, interpretation involves construction of the statutes that the agency administers. OLC opinions are issued to advise agencies, not the general public. Moreover, OLC often construes the Constitution; even when it construes statutes, the statutes would rarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "OLC opinions might seem to qualify as statements of policy\nthe critical aspect of both categories\nis their “formulat[ion] and adopt[ion] by the agency\nonly documents that provide guidance to the public qualify as statements of policy or interpretations\nOLC opinions are issued to advise agencies, not the general public\nOLC often construes the Constitution; even when it construes statutes, the statutes would rarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The OLC merely provides advice without dictating a policy to adopt.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "OLC opinions might seem to qualify as statements of policy\nthe critical aspect of both categories\nis their “formulat[ion] and adopt[ion] by the agency\nonly documents that provide guidance to the public qualify as statements of policy or interpretations\nOLC opinions are issued to advise agencies, not the general public\nOLC often construes the Constitution; even when it construes statutes, the statutes would rarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "formulat[ion] and adopt[ion]\nprovide guidance to the public\nadvise agencies, not the general public\nconstrues the Constitution\nrarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: The OLC merely provides advice without dictating a policy to adopt.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "OLC opinions might seem to qualify as statements of policy\nthe critical aspect of both categories\nis their “formulat[ion] and adopt[ion] by the agency\nonly documents that provide guidance to the public qualify as statements of policy or interpretations\nOLC opinions are issued to advise agencies, not the general public\nOLC often construes the Constitution; even when it construes statutes, the statutes would rarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "OLC opinions might seem to qualify as\npolicy\ncritical\nis\nformulat[ion] and adopt[ion]\nonly documents that provide guidance to the public qualify as\npolicy\nOLC opinions\nadvise agencies, not the general public\nOLC\nconstrues the Constitution\nstatutes would rarely be ones OLC can be said to “administer.”", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Y’all better quiet down…vote negative to endorse a Transfeminist-of-color epistemology that refuses cis-white IR in the making because the girls are tired, and you should be too. Only leaning into transfeminism-of-color can carve out space for modes of theorization that genuinely subtend to the endurance of otherwise ways of being while avoiding the risk of ivory tower parasitism.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "At this stage, a crucial caveat on theorizing is warranted. In my lived experience as Trans woman of color navigating hostile spaces in the politics/IR academy, in my political engagements as an elected officer of a British political party, and in shaping the priorities of my international activism, my guiding principles stem from a Transfeminist-of-color discourse, developed by Black and Brown Trans women through the decades and profoundly inspired by Black feminist, women-of-color feminist, and Indigenous feminist thought. This \"Transfeminism of color\" is conceived, developed, and lived outside the white Trans male-dominated \"academic\" sphere of Transgender studies, which has pride of place in the ivory towers of the Western academy. The latter does not correspond to the lived experiences and the particularly toxic Transmisogyny faced by Trans women of color worldwide-most importantly, Transmisogynoir that kills.7\nTransfeminism of color is a quintessential way of life and a source of survival. Although the academy's ivory tower is just beginning to recognize the crucial importance of Black feminism to the entire realm of ivory-tower Trans theory and Transgender studies (Ellison et al. 2017; Krell 2017), it is crucial to affirm that Transfeminism of color is yet to be accorded its pleine place in the academic ivory tower. This is precisely the reason that makes a Transfeminist-of-color epistemology-developed first and foremost through the lived experience of women at the receiving end of multiple oppressive currents-best-suited to address the challenges of a neoliberal world order and its inherently unequal financial, racial, sociopolitical, and cultural stratifications. This article is also an initiative by a Trans woman of colour in political activity, who navigates transnational and multilingual spaces, to claim the rightful place for women-of-color Transfeminism, or Transfeminism of color, in the annals of the Western academy. In what follows, and unless otherwise indicated, the term Transfeminism is therefore used throughout to exclusively and systematically refer to Transfeminism of color.\nThe core concepts of Transfeminist-of-color thought, from solidarities to sisterhood beyond \"cisterhood,\" have been especially enriched by the critical work of Black feminist scholar-activists such as Audre Lorde, whose writings carry crucial messages of solidarities, movement building, racial justice, and sisterhood (see, e.g., Lorde 20n). Most importantly, the roots of Transfeminist-of-color thought lie in the historical precedent of Trans-inclusive feminist activism spearheaded by Trans women of color such as the late Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rae Rivera, whose contributions were crucial to the recognition of LGBTQI rights in Turtle Island but are overshadowed by the powerful images of cis white gay men. In this sense, the Transfeminist-of-color discourse is one that strongly stands up against anti-Black racism, as well as the marginalization and erasure of Black women. 8 Inspired by the militant spirit and civil disobedience of early Transfeminist activism, present-day Trans feminist discourses are profoundly intersectional, critical, and global. The primary strength of Transfeminism emanates from the fact that it is inspired, influenced by, and learns from all currents in non-whitestream feminisms, including Black, Latinx, postcolonial, and queer feminisms. Transfeminism, to quote Silva and Ornat (2016, 221) on Brazilian Transfeminist perspectives, 'is enthusiastic, optimistic, supportive and inclusive, and fights against intersectional oppressions ... notably, class and race .... In this sense, Transfeminism is a powerful, creative intervention into our ways of being in the world, in that it goes beyond binarism and the essentialism of identities'. Transfeminism is therefore capable of forming part and parcel of, and standing in full solidarity with, all other non-whitestream feminisms.\nTransfeminism recognizes the diversity of gender(s) from one sociopolitical and geographical context to another, as well as the fact that one's gender assigned at birth does not necessarily determine one's gender identity. This broad-based understanding of the pluralities inherent in gender(s) expands the relevance of Transfeminism way beyond the confines of the English-speaking, white-dominated Western academy. Given its decolonizing and self-critiquing dynamics, Transfeminism appeals to a wider international audience. Volume 3, issue 1-2 of Transgender Studies Quarterly (Stryker and Bettcher 2016b), which was fully devoted to the theme of Transfeminism, attests to this global appeal of Transfeminism. Its preparedness to interact with, un-learn, and inspire from Indigenous feminisms and systems of knowledge production, as well as its active engagement with racial and gender justice struggles, make Transfeminism a movement that extends beyond the ivory towers of academia, the scholarly confines of white liberals, and the queer research that excludes-if not avoids empowering-peoples of color. Many exponents of Transfeminism in the academy and beyond, including myself, are also committed activists, especially in movements such as #BlackLivesMatter and #NoIWontJustMoveOn, where a fundamental tenet of activism involves ensuring lead roles to Trans and queer people of color, disabled people, and, very especially, Indigenous women and gender-plural people. Transfeminism is best inscribed not within the academy but outside its corridors, and is \"theorized\" in the work of writers, poets, and artists who contribute to enhance its decolonizing ethos.9 Transfeminist research does not follow the standard protocols of heteronormative academia, and is therefore especially relevant to discussions on decolonizing the academy and modes of knowledge production (Egafia and Sola 2016).\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "At this stage, a crucial caveat on theorizing is warranted. In my lived experience as Trans woman of color navigating hostile spaces in the politics/IR academy, in my political engagements\nand in shaping the priorities of my international activism, my guiding principles stem from a Transfeminist-of-color discourse, developed by Black and Brown Trans women\nand profoundly inspired by Black feminist, women-of-color feminist, and Indigenous feminist thought. This \"Transfeminism of color\" is conceived, developed, and lived outside the white Trans\nsphere of\nstudies, which has pride of place in the ivory towers of the Western academy. The latter does not correspond to the lived experiences and the particularly toxic Transmisogyny\nTransmisogynoir that kills.\nTransfeminism of color is a quintessential way of life and a source of survival. Although the\nivory tower is\nbeginning to recognize\nimportance of Black feminism to the entire realm of\nTransgender studies\nit is crucial to affirm that Transfeminism of color is yet to be accorded\nThis is precisely the reason that makes a Transfeminist-of-color epistemology-developed first and foremost through\nlived experience of women at the receiving end of multiple oppressive currents-best-suited to address\nchallenges of a neoliberal world order and its\nunequal financial, racial, sociopolitical, and cultural stratifications.\nIn what follows,\nthe term Transfeminism is therefore used throughout to exclusively and systematically refer to Transfeminism of color.\ncore concepts of Transfeminist-of-color thought, from solidarities to sisterhood beyond \"cisterhood,\" have been\nenriched by\nwork of Black feminist scholar-activists such as\nLorde,\nthe roots of Transfeminist-of-color thought lie in the historical precedent of\nfeminist activism spearheaded by Trans women of color such as\nMarsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rae Rivera, whose contributions were crucial to the recognition of LGBTQI rights in Turtle Island but\novershadowed by\ncis white gay men.\nTransfeminist\ndiscourse\nstrongly stands\nagainst anti-Black racism,\nand erasure of Black women.\nTrans feminist discourses are profoundly intersectional, critical, and global. The primary strength of Transfeminism emanates from the fact that it is inspired, influenced by, and learns from all currents in non-whitestream feminisms,\nBlack, Latinx, postcolonial, and queer feminisms. Transfeminism,\n'is enthusiastic, optimistic, supportive and inclusive, and fights against intersectional oppressions ... notably, class and race\na powerful, creative intervention into our ways of being in the world,\nthat\ngoes beyond binarism and the essentialism of identities'.\nbroad-based understanding of the pluralities inherent in gender(s) expands\nrelevance\nway beyond the confines of the English-speaking, white-dominated Western academy. Given its decolonizing and self-critiquing dynamics, Transfeminism appeals to a wider international audience.\nIts preparedness to interact with, un-learn, and inspire from Indigenous feminisms and systems of knowledge production, as well as\nengagement with racial and gender justice struggles, make Transfeminism a movement that extends beyond the ivory towers\nthe scholarly confines of white liberals, and the queer research that excludes-if not avoids empowering-peoples of color.\na fundamental tenet of activism involves ensuring lead roles to Trans and queer people of color, disabled people, and, very especially, Indigenous women and gender-plural people. Transfeminism is best\n\"theorized\" in the work of writers, poets, and artists who contribute to enhance its decolonizing ethos.\nresearch does not follow the standard protocols of heteronormative academia, and is therefore especially relevant to discussions on decolonizing the academy and\nknowledge production", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Y’all better quiet down…vote negative to endorse a Transfeminist-of-color epistemology that refuses cis-white IR in the making because the girls are tired, and you should be too. Only leaning into transfeminism-of-color can carve out space for modes of theorization that genuinely subtend to the endurance of otherwise ways of being while avoiding the risk of ivory tower parasitism.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "At this stage, a crucial caveat on theorizing is warranted. In my lived experience as Trans woman of color navigating hostile spaces in the politics/IR academy, in my political engagements\nand in shaping the priorities of my international activism, my guiding principles stem from a Transfeminist-of-color discourse, developed by Black and Brown Trans women\nand profoundly inspired by Black feminist, women-of-color feminist, and Indigenous feminist thought. This \"Transfeminism of color\" is conceived, developed, and lived outside the white Trans\nsphere of\nstudies, which has pride of place in the ivory towers of the Western academy. The latter does not correspond to the lived experiences and the particularly toxic Transmisogyny\nTransmisogynoir that kills.\nTransfeminism of color is a quintessential way of life and a source of survival. Although the\nivory tower is\nbeginning to recognize\nimportance of Black feminism to the entire realm of\nTransgender studies\nit is crucial to affirm that Transfeminism of color is yet to be accorded\nThis is precisely the reason that makes a Transfeminist-of-color epistemology-developed first and foremost through\nlived experience of women at the receiving end of multiple oppressive currents-best-suited to address\nchallenges of a neoliberal world order and its\nunequal financial, racial, sociopolitical, and cultural stratifications.\nIn what follows,\nthe term Transfeminism is therefore used throughout to exclusively and systematically refer to Transfeminism of color.\ncore concepts of Transfeminist-of-color thought, from solidarities to sisterhood beyond \"cisterhood,\" have been\nenriched by\nwork of Black feminist scholar-activists such as\nLorde,\nthe roots of Transfeminist-of-color thought lie in the historical precedent of\nfeminist activism spearheaded by Trans women of color such as\nMarsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rae Rivera, whose contributions were crucial to the recognition of LGBTQI rights in Turtle Island but\novershadowed by\ncis white gay men.\nTransfeminist\ndiscourse\nstrongly stands\nagainst anti-Black racism,\nand erasure of Black women.\nTrans feminist discourses are profoundly intersectional, critical, and global. The primary strength of Transfeminism emanates from the fact that it is inspired, influenced by, and learns from all currents in non-whitestream feminisms,\nBlack, Latinx, postcolonial, and queer feminisms. Transfeminism,\n'is enthusiastic, optimistic, supportive and inclusive, and fights against intersectional oppressions ... notably, class and race\na powerful, creative intervention into our ways of being in the world,\nthat\ngoes beyond binarism and the essentialism of identities'.\nbroad-based understanding of the pluralities inherent in gender(s) expands\nrelevance\nway beyond the confines of the English-speaking, white-dominated Western academy. Given its decolonizing and self-critiquing dynamics, Transfeminism appeals to a wider international audience.\nIts preparedness to interact with, un-learn, and inspire from Indigenous feminisms and systems of knowledge production, as well as\nengagement with racial and gender justice struggles, make Transfeminism a movement that extends beyond the ivory towers\nthe scholarly confines of white liberals, and the queer research that excludes-if not avoids empowering-peoples of color.\na fundamental tenet of activism involves ensuring lead roles to Trans and queer people of color, disabled people, and, very especially, Indigenous women and gender-plural people. Transfeminism is best\n\"theorized\" in the work of writers, poets, and artists who contribute to enhance its decolonizing ethos.\nresearch does not follow the standard protocols of heteronormative academia, and is therefore especially relevant to discussions on decolonizing the academy and\nknowledge production", "role": "user" }, { "content": "caveat on theorizing is warranted\nTransfeminist-of-color discourse\ndeveloped by Black and Brown Trans women\ninspired by Black\nof-color\nand Indigenous\nthought\nis\nlived outside\nwhite Trans\nsphere\nwhich has pride\nin\ntower\nlatter does not correspond to\nlived experiences\nTransmisogynoir that kills\nTransfeminism of color is\nway of life and\nsurvival\nTransfeminist\nepistemology\nbest-suited to address\nneoliberal world order and its\nfinancial\nracial\ncultural stratifications\nTransfeminist\nthought\nenriched by\nBlack feminist scholar-activists\nroots\nlie in\nhistorical precedent of\nactivism spearheaded by Trans women of color such as\nMarsha\nand Sylvia\ndiscourse\nagainst anti-Black racism\nand erasure of Black women\nprofoundly intersectional\nand global\nstrength\nemanates from\nfact that it is\ninfluenced by\nnon-whitestream\nfeminisms\nenthusiastic\nsupportive\nand fights against intersectional oppressions\nintervention into\nways of being\ngoes beyond binarism and\nessentialism\nbroad-based understanding of\npluralities\nexpands\nbeyond\nconfines of\nacademy\nTransfeminism appeals to\ninternational audience\npreparedness to\nun-learn\nand inspire\nas well as\nengage\nracial and gender\nstruggles\nmake Transfeminism a movement that extends beyond\nivory tower\nscholarly confines of white liberals\nand\nqueer research that excludes\npeoples of color\nfundamental tenet\ninvolves ensuring lead roles to Trans\nqueer people of color\ndisabled people\nand\nIndigenous women and gender-plural people\nbest\ntheorized\nin\nwork of\npoets\nand artists\nresearch does not follow\nstandard protocols of hetero\nacademia", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Only warming causes extinction", "role": "system" }, { "content": "A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices. An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive. In the near term, emissions would almost certainly rise as militaries are some of the world’s largest emitters. Given what we know of human history, though, conflict may be the only way to build the mass social cohesion necessary for undertaking the kind of huge, collective action needed for global sequestration and energy transition. Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows? What we do know is that humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter\nis based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices.\nhumans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Only warming causes extinction", "role": "system" }, { "content": "nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter\nis based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices.\nhumans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "apocalyptic loss of life\nNuclear winter\nshaky science\nno reliable model\nhow many megatons\ndecimate agriculture\nextinct\n2,476 nuclear devices\nsurvive\nrecover from\nnuclear one\ncannot recover\nrunaway climate change\nnot\ninevitable extinction event\nsix degrees of warming is", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Only warming causes extinction\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.8", "role": "system" }, { "content": "nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter\nis based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices.\nhumans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "nuclear exchange does not\nresult in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter\nis based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would\nmake humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuc\ns.\nhumans can survive\nwar\neven a nuclear one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event;\nwarming is", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cephalopod research has numerous benefits including reducing effects of climate change, increasing tech, and biological innovation", "role": "system" }, { "content": "General Introduction\nCephalopods have long haunted the human imagination as monsters, inspiring mythology dating back to ancient Greek culture (e.g., the Hydra from the labors of Hercules, see Cousteau and Diolé, 1973, p. 72–73, 75; the Gordon Medusa in Wilk, 2000), to legends of sea monsters in Nordic culture and among sailors throughout the middle ages (Salvador and Tomotani, 2014), to the science fiction of the modern world (e.g., Sphere: Crichton, 1988; 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Verne, 1988), where they – or creatures strongly resembling them – often lurk in outer space as alien creatures from other worlds (as in the motion pictures Arrival1 and Life2, to mention some). And while they were once reviled as “stupid” by Aristotle (1910), and dangerous, as in Toilers of the Sea (Hugo, 2002), this unique molluscan taxon has now come to be admired by both scientists, artists and the general public alike (Nakajima et al., 2018). Their growing popularity is reflected in the choice of many aquariums to house them as star attractions, despite the sometimes formidable challenges associated with keeping them. They are also depicted fondly in contemporary culture from computer generated animations in blockbuster films (e.g., Pirates of the Caribbean; At World’s End3, Finding Dory4), to clothing, jewelery and artwork, to the surfeit of online videos5 featuring cephalopods. Few other invertebrates garner this degree of recognition or status.\nCephalopods have also come to be respected for their various contributions to scientific research. During the first half of the 20th century (white bars in Figure 1), they played a pivotal role in our understanding of the neuron, thanks to the relative accessibility of the giant axon in squid (Keynes, 2005). This was followed by a period of intense investigation of the cephalopodan nervous system and learning abilities, led by John Z. Young and his fellows, including B. B. Boycott and M. J. Wells among others, from the 1950s to 1970s (see light gray bars in Figure 1). Progress slowed from the 1970s to 1990 (see dark gray bars in Figure 1), due mainly to a lack of appropriate investigative tools to address outstanding questions (see Bitterman, 1975; see also Young, 1985). Thankfully, the end of the 20th century to the present day has seen a steadily growing body of work concerned with various other aspects of cephalopod biology, including genetics, welfare and the effects of climate change (see black bars in Figure 1, and detailed subject-by-subject breakdown in Figure 2).\nToday, some of the most unique characteristics of cephalopods are also inspiring various technological developments, including adaptive camouflage based on cephalopod skin that can display a variety of patterns (Wang Q. et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2014) or spontaneously match its surroundings (Pikul et al., 2017), suction cups for wound repair (Choi et al., 2016), propulsion and buoyancy systems for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV, Song et al., 2016), distributed cognitive control systems for artificial intelligence (Íñiguez, 2017) and the design of soft robots (Laschi et al., 2012; Renda et al., 2012).\nDespite their great popularity and scientific relevance, detailed information on the biology, ecology, and physiology exists for about 8% (60 species) of the 800 or so known extant species of cephalopods (Jereb and Roper, 2005, 2010; Norman et al., 2014). Much more work is needed if we are to take advantage of all the scientific, technological and cultural inspiration that cephalopods have to offer. In order to stimulate further progress, we here focus on the potential of emerging technologies and of growing interest in cephalopods to address gaps in knowledge in seven particular subfields. We highlight some recent examples of progress in the fields of cephalopod genetics, aquaculture, climate change, welfare, behavior, cognition and neurobiology, and suggest challenges meriting particular focus in the near future (summarized in Table 1). The authors are three researchers who recently completed Ph.Ds in cephalopod biology, and who are thus particularly well-positioned (and motivated) to speculate about the future of the field. This manuscript follows from a series of keynote lectures (“Cephalopod Research; Visions of the Future”) delivered during the CephsInAction and CIAC Meeting: Cephalopod Science from Biology to Welfare, held at the CRETAquarium (Crete, Greece, March 28–30, 2017). Hereafter, we first review the current state of cephalopod genetics (an especially fertile area of potential growth) and discuss some of the many ways omic technology can be applied to cephalopod research, including aquaculture. Next, we explore three topics related to cephalopod-human interactions: aquaculture, climate change and anthropogenic impact and welfare of animals in captivity. Finally, we discuss research concerning cephalopod behavior, cognition, and neurobiology, three distinctive biological innovations that occurred during the evolution of this lineage.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Cephalopods\nFew other invertebrates garner this degree of recognition or status\nCephalopods have\ncome to be respected for their various contributions to scientific research\nthey played a pivotal role in our understanding of the neuron\nthanks to the relative accessibility of the giant axon in squid\nfollowed by\nintense investigation of the cephalopodan nervous system and learning abilities\nthe end of the 20th century to the present day has seen a steadily growing body of work concerned with various other aspects of cephalopod biology\nincluding genetics\nwelfare and the effects of climate change\nsome of the most unique characteristics of cephalopods are also inspiring various technological developments\nincluding adaptive camouflage\nthat can display\npatterns\nor spontaneously match its surroundings\nsuction cups for wound repair\nand buoyancy systems for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles\ndistributed cognitive control systems for artificial intelligence\nand the design of soft robots\nMuch more work is needed if we are to take advantage of all the scientific\ntechnological and cultural inspiration that cephalopods have to offer\nWe highlight\nrecent examples of progress in the fields of cephalopod genetics\naquaculture\nclimate change\nwelfare\nbehavior\ncognition and neurobiology\nand suggest challenges meriting particular focus in the near future", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cephalopod research has numerous benefits including reducing effects of climate change, increasing tech, and biological innovation", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Cephalopods\nFew other invertebrates garner this degree of recognition or status\nCephalopods have\ncome to be respected for their various contributions to scientific research\nthey played a pivotal role in our understanding of the neuron\nthanks to the relative accessibility of the giant axon in squid\nfollowed by\nintense investigation of the cephalopodan nervous system and learning abilities\nthe end of the 20th century to the present day has seen a steadily growing body of work concerned with various other aspects of cephalopod biology\nincluding genetics\nwelfare and the effects of climate change\nsome of the most unique characteristics of cephalopods are also inspiring various technological developments\nincluding adaptive camouflage\nthat can display\npatterns\nor spontaneously match its surroundings\nsuction cups for wound repair\nand buoyancy systems for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles\ndistributed cognitive control systems for artificial intelligence\nand the design of soft robots\nMuch more work is needed if we are to take advantage of all the scientific\ntechnological and cultural inspiration that cephalopods have to offer\nWe highlight\nrecent examples of progress in the fields of cephalopod genetics\naquaculture\nclimate change\nwelfare\nbehavior\ncognition and neurobiology\nand suggest challenges meriting particular focus in the near future", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Cephalopods\nrecognition\nstatus\nCephalopods\nrespected\nvarious contributions\nunderstanding of the neuron\ncephalopodan nervous system\nlearning abilities\nsteadily growing\ncephalopod biology\ngenetics\nwelfare\nclimate change\nunique characteristics\ntech\ndevelopments\nadaptive camouflage\nsuction cups\nbuoyancy systems\na\ni\nsoft robots\nMuch more work\nadvantage\nscientific\ntech\ncultural inspiration\nrecent examples\ngenetics\naquaculture\nclimate change\nwelfare\nbehavior\ncognition\nneurobiology", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Cephalopod research has numerous benefits including reducing effects of climate change, increasing tech, and biological innovation\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Cephalopods\nFew other invertebrates garner this degree of recognition or status\nCephalopods have\ncome to be respected for their various contributions to scientific research\nthey played a pivotal role in our understanding of the neuron\nthanks to the relative accessibility of the giant axon in squid\nfollowed by\nintense investigation of the cephalopodan nervous system and learning abilities\nthe end of the 20th century to the present day has seen a steadily growing body of work concerned with various other aspects of cephalopod biology\nincluding genetics\nwelfare and the effects of climate change\nsome of the most unique characteristics of cephalopods are also inspiring various technological developments\nincluding adaptive camouflage\nthat can display\npatterns\nor spontaneously match its surroundings\nsuction cups for wound repair\nand buoyancy systems for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles\ndistributed cognitive control systems for artificial intelligence\nand the design of soft robots\nMuch more work is needed if we are to take advantage of all the scientific\ntechnological and cultural inspiration that cephalopods have to offer\nWe highlight\nrecent examples of progress in the fields of cephalopod genetics\naquaculture\nclimate change\nwelfare\nbehavior\ncognition and neurobiology\nand suggest challenges meriting particular focus in the near future", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Few other invertebrates garner this\nrecognition\nCephalopods have\ncome to be respected for\ncontributions to scientific research\nthey played a\nrole in\nunderstanding of the neuron\nfollowed by\nintense investigation of\nlearning abilities\nsteadily growing\nwork concerned with\ncephalopod biology\nincluding genetics\nwelfare and\nclimate change\ncharacteristics of cephalopods are\ninspiring\ntech\ndevelopments\nincluding\ncamouflage\nsuction cups for wound repair\nand buoyancy systems for\nUnderwater Vehicles\ncognitive\nsystems for a\ni\nand\ndesign of soft robots\nMuch more work is needed\nto take advantage of all the scientific\ntech\nand cultural inspiration that cephalopods have to offer\nWe highlight\ngenetics\naquaculture\nclimate change\nwelfare\nbehavior\ncognition and neurobiology", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The dollar is solid but dependent on strong US alliances.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The power of the US now rests almost solely on the status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency, allowing it to use sanctions and exert pressure on countries. In order to maintain this, it must also keep its allies invested in that system.\nIn fact, the US dollar is more than a currency. There is a whole system built around it. Sovereign financial instruments, be they currency or bonds, are also political documents that have behind them institutional arrangement, credible legal frameworks, international alliances as well as military, political and economic power. Any merchant who invested in Ottoman or Austrian bonds before the First World War learned that lesson the hard way.\nBut the dollar system is still solid, the only game in town, and there are no indications of its demise. On the contrary, during financial crises, people still rush to it for safety. Istanbul bazaar traders, in these times of inflation, convert their Turkish lira to dollars almost daily as a store of value. This is partly an intangible faith in its value and convertibility and mainly because there is no credible alternative.\nThis was tested in 1981 when the US dollar lost about two thirds of its purchasing power through stagflation and still maintained that status. I remember left-wing student organizations celebrating the end of American capitalism in conferences 42 years ago.\nDebt ceilings can be raised multiple times and the country will be immune to financial crises as long as it can print its currency and there is global demand for it. No matter what its share of international trade is, other currencies traded have to pass through dollar-based convertibility to be credible; even gold is priced in dollars.\nThe world as we know it needs a currency of reference such as the dollar. There is no substitute. Furthermore, the dollar is not only a currency, it is also a platform for trade and payment and dispute resolution, mainly through American courts. To understand this, imagine having to resort to Russian or Chinese courts to resolve disputes.\nIt took two world wars to dislodge British sterling from that position, and the whole post-Second World War international institutional arrangements as well, as much of international trade is reliant on the dollar since it was adopted as the global reserve currency at the Bretton Woods conference. That established the current international order and its institutions — such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the International Trade Organization. It would take a huge upheaval in the international system to dislodge the dollar.\nHaving said that, the very fact that we are asking these questions means that the process has begun. We are seeing numerous alliances being formed to combat the dollar: Every time the US uses sanctions against a country or blocks it from using the SWIFT financial transfers network controlled by the US Treasury or other dollar-based instruments; every time it freezes dollar-based assets, it pushes more actors to start looking for alternatives. Who knows what will happen with central bank digital currency if it also moves to interbank operations. No state can defeat the dollar on its own but alliances are forming with that sole purpose.\nWhen states have an incentive to move away from any instruments or bonds that the US can seize at leisure or displeasure, that system is no longer safe — even America’s allies are worried. A friend’s father once said that ideally banking should be boring, now it is becoming dangerous.\nRussia and China are leading the charge and are gathering allies through several mechanisms. One of them is the expansion of the BRICS alliance already composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The acronym was coined by Jim O'Neill, the former chief economist of the Goldman Sachs group who has recently called for its expansion — and there are already talks with several countries, including some major oil producers, to join it.\nChina leads the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian economic, political, security and defense bloc that is also seeking an expansion of its members. They are already discussing alternative arrangements that would hedge against US-dollar dominance. These efforts have increased with the Ukraine war and the stepping up of Russian-Chinese trade in yuan.\nThe global economy is also going through a period of instability. In the past 12 years, especially since 2011, we have witnessed increasing protest movements that represent cracks in the post-Second World War system. In the 1980s, when we spoke of a global debt crisis it was understood to mean the debt of developing countries. In 2023, we automatically also think of some of the leading economies such as Japan and the UK, as well as the PIIGS group in Europe composed of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, with Greece having the highest debt to GDP ratio of close to 178 percent. The US is again immune to this but the consequences of a large-scale global crisis remain unpredictable.\nThere is a new generation that is questioning that world order. A generation that still pays taxes but gets fewer services than the previous one and is expected to shoulder the debt burden their parents’ generation has created. The 20th-century welfare state has sold them short. They don’t have faith in official figures, they see that survival on current salary levels is impossible. Economists are the last people to offer solutions; Greece and Argentina have the world’s best economists and the worst economies. The next change in the global order could be the result of financial implosion rather than a world war.\nThe US has also been losing influence in regions it is withdrawing from, and many of its friends have doubts about its reliability as a guarantor of their security and protection. Within the US itself there are also growing voices that question its role as a superpower and its ability to lead a stable global order. Even the Europeans are not satisfied with the current security arrangements. America forgot how much it depends on its allies. The recent Chinese-brokered agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran is but one indication of this phenomenon.\nIf the demise of the dollar is still difficult to imagine, it is also equally challenging to think of its power as eternal. The US should review its strategy and work with its friends and allies and maintain its soft power to ensure that when change happens, it will be managed. A hostile collapse of the US dollar would have dire consequences on the interdependent global economy and most of all, on the US itself.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "power of the US\nrests\non the status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency\nIn order to maintain this, it must\nkeep its allies invested in that system\nthe US dollar is more than a currency\nThere is a whole system\npolitical documents\ninstitutional arrangement\nlegal frameworks\ninternational alliances\nthe dollar system is still solid\nand there are no indications of its demise\nDebt ceilings can be raised\ncountry will be immune to financial crises as long as it can print its currency and there is global demand for it.\ncurrencies\nhave to pass through dollar\nbased convertibility to be credible\ngold is priced in dollars\nThere is no substitute\nIt would take\nupheaval in the international system to dislodge the dollar\nHaving said that\nthat the process has begun\nWe are seeing numerous alliances being formed to combat the dollar\nNo state can defeat the dollar on its own but alliances are forming with that sole purpose\neven America’s allies are worried\nRussia and China are leading the charge\ngathering allies through several mechanisms\nthe BRICS\nThe next change in the global order could be the result of financial implosion\nUS has\nbeen losing influence\nfriends have doubts about its reliability\nEuropeans are not satisfied\nAmerica forgot how much it depends on its allies\nThe US should\nwork with its friends and allies and maintain its soft power\nhostile collapse\nwould have dire consequences on the\nglobal economy", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The dollar is solid but dependent on strong US alliances.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "power of the US\nrests\non the status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency\nIn order to maintain this, it must\nkeep its allies invested in that system\nthe US dollar is more than a currency\nThere is a whole system\npolitical documents\ninstitutional arrangement\nlegal frameworks\ninternational alliances\nthe dollar system is still solid\nand there are no indications of its demise\nDebt ceilings can be raised\ncountry will be immune to financial crises as long as it can print its currency and there is global demand for it.\ncurrencies\nhave to pass through dollar\nbased convertibility to be credible\ngold is priced in dollars\nThere is no substitute\nIt would take\nupheaval in the international system to dislodge the dollar\nHaving said that\nthat the process has begun\nWe are seeing numerous alliances being formed to combat the dollar\nNo state can defeat the dollar on its own but alliances are forming with that sole purpose\neven America’s allies are worried\nRussia and China are leading the charge\ngathering allies through several mechanisms\nthe BRICS\nThe next change in the global order could be the result of financial implosion\nUS has\nbeen losing influence\nfriends have doubts about its reliability\nEuropeans are not satisfied\nAmerica forgot how much it depends on its allies\nThe US should\nwork with its friends and allies and maintain its soft power\nhostile collapse\nwould have dire consequences on the\nglobal economy", "role": "user" }, { "content": "dollar\nglobal reserve currency\nmust\nallies invested\ncurrency\ninternational alliances\nstill solid\nno indications\nimmune\ncurrency\nglobal demand\ndollar\nbased convertibility\nno substitute\nupheaval\ndislodge\nHaving said that\nbegun\nalliances\nallies\nglobal order\nfinancial implosion\ninfluence\ndoubts\nreliability\nsatisfied\nallies\nsoft power\nhostile collapse\ndire consequences\nglobal economy", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: The dollar is solid but dependent on strong US alliances.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "power of the US\nrests\non the status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency\nIn order to maintain this, it must\nkeep its allies invested in that system\nthe US dollar is more than a currency\nThere is a whole system\npolitical documents\ninstitutional arrangement\nlegal frameworks\ninternational alliances\nthe dollar system is still solid\nand there are no indications of its demise\nDebt ceilings can be raised\ncountry will be immune to financial crises as long as it can print its currency and there is global demand for it.\ncurrencies\nhave to pass through dollar\nbased convertibility to be credible\ngold is priced in dollars\nThere is no substitute\nIt would take\nupheaval in the international system to dislodge the dollar\nHaving said that\nthat the process has begun\nWe are seeing numerous alliances being formed to combat the dollar\nNo state can defeat the dollar on its own but alliances are forming with that sole purpose\neven America’s allies are worried\nRussia and China are leading the charge\ngathering allies through several mechanisms\nthe BRICS\nThe next change in the global order could be the result of financial implosion\nUS has\nbeen losing influence\nfriends have doubts about its reliability\nEuropeans are not satisfied\nAmerica forgot how much it depends on its allies\nThe US should\nwork with its friends and allies and maintain its soft power\nhostile collapse\nwould have dire consequences on the\nglobal economy", "role": "user" }, { "content": "power of\nthe US dollar\nmust\nkeep its allies invested\ndollar\nis still solid\nthere are no indications of its demise\nDebt ceilings\nimmune to financial crises\nthere is global demand\ndollar\nbased convertibility\nThere is no substitute\nwould take\nupheaval in the international system\nHaving said that\nprocess has begun\nalliances are forming\nAmerica’s allies are worried\nUS\nlosing influence\nfriends have doubts\nAmerica\ndepends on its allies\nUS should\nwork with\nallies\nhostile collapse\nwould have dire consequences", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cohesion’s irrelevant to alliance success.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "[TITLE]: “No consensus? No problem. Why NATO is still effective”\nCritics of the alliance (and even some supporters) have interpreted NATO’s unwillingness to militarily support Ukraine — especially during the most significant challenge to the European security order since the Cold War — as an indicator of its declining relevance, timidity, or its divisions. But that overstates the importance of political consensus to NATO’s value and understates its role as an effective and flexible defensive alliance. This is a role with potentially critical benefits for Ukraine.\nFirst, it sets too high a bar for an alliance of thirty members with aligned, but distinct, priorities. Unanimity on every issue is impossible, let alone one as complex as military support to Ukraine. Debate and disagreement, as it should be for any democratic institution, are built-in features of NATO — not bugs. In reality, it’s astounding how often NATO does reach consensus about issues big and small, creating an unrealistic expectation that it always will. The opposite of consensus is not failure. Suggesting otherwise turns any debate that doesn’t end harmoniously into an indictment of NATO, playing straight into Russian propaganda.\nSecond, a belief that NATO’s value is tied primarily to achieving consensus on every issue misses the more mundane (and important) ways it supports its allies and partners. Its affinity for process — particularly its ability to build a common situational understanding among its members — is an invaluable tool. Habits of consultation and information sharing, buttressed by deep cooperation on operations, intelligence sharing, defense planning, and interoperability, create the foundation upon which any consensus is to be built. Even in the absence of that agreement, the ability to collectively define threats and jointly train to confront them is immensely valuable in its own right. \nThird, these habits of cooperation give NATO members the flexibility to act outside of the Alliance’s frameworks. While NATO does much by consensus — such as its missions in the Baltic states — the skills it helps members develop is central to enabling them to form separate coalitions for action. This happened recently with ample success in taking on the Islamic State. Such flexibility should be a point in NATO’s favor, not evidence of its ineptitude. \nIn the case of military support for Ukraine, policymakers will find more attractive alternatives for dealing with Moscow’s aggression outside of the auspices of the Alliance. Up to and including its recent dialogue with Russia, it has taken a host of consensus actions to support Ukraine — from condemning Kremlin aggression and standing up for Kyiv politically to reaffirming its open-door policy with an expectation that Ukraine will eventually become a member. It might even share intelligence and develop training and advisory programs for the Ukrainian military. \nAnd while it won’t find a consensus to fight, it could provide the foundation for certain allies to support Ukrainian forces in ways consistent with their national priorities outside of NATO. In that case, NATO’s enabling value to its members in complicating Putin’s cost-benefit assessment should be applauded.\nLast week’s NATO-Russia Council meeting showcased an Alliance working in lockstep and finding political consensus in responding to preposterous Russian demands. NATO should always strive for this degree of consensus. But if and when this crisis intensifies, and Putin advances further into Ukraine, expectations for NATO assistance will be raised, decisions about how to respond will become more difficult, and consensus will be more elusive. \nDespite the rhetoric we might hear in response, this is not evidence of NATO’s ineffectiveness — but rather a reflection of how democratic institutions function. And even absent consensus, NATO can still contribute invaluably to Ukraine’s sovereignty.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "No consensus\nNo problem\nWhy NATO is still effective\nCritics\ninterpreted NATO’s unwillingness to militarily support Ukraine\nas\nindicator of its declining relevance\nBut that overstates\nimportance of political consensus to NATO’s value and understates\nrole as an effective and flexible defensive alliance\nwith potentially critical benefits\nsets too high a bar for an alliance\nwith aligned\nbut distinct\npriorities\nDebate and disagreement\nare built-in features of NATO\nnot bugs\nit’s astounding how often NATO does reach consensus\nSuggesting otherwise\nplaying straight into Russian propaganda\nmisses the more\nimportant\nways it supports its allies and partners\naffinity for process\nability to build\ncommon situational understanding\nis\ninvaluable\nHabits of consultation\ninformation sharing\nbuttressed by deep cooperation\nintelligence sharing\ndefense planning\nand interoperability\ncreate the foundation upon which\nconsensus is to be built\nEven in the absence of\nagreement\nability to collectively define threats and jointly\nconfront them is immensely valuable\nhabits of cooperation give NATO members\nflexibility\nhelps members develop\ncentral to enabling them to form\ncoalitions for action\nhappened recently with ample success in taking on the Islamic State\nflexibility\na point in NATO’s favor\nnot\nineptitude\nprovide the foundation for\nallies to support\nin ways consistent with\nnational priorities outside of NATO\nNATO’s enabling value to its members\ncomplicating Putin’s cost-benefit assessment\nthis is not evidence of NATO’s ineffectiveness\nhow democratic institutions function", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cohesion’s irrelevant to alliance success.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "No consensus\nNo problem\nWhy NATO is still effective\nCritics\ninterpreted NATO’s unwillingness to militarily support Ukraine\nas\nindicator of its declining relevance\nBut that overstates\nimportance of political consensus to NATO’s value and understates\nrole as an effective and flexible defensive alliance\nwith potentially critical benefits\nsets too high a bar for an alliance\nwith aligned\nbut distinct\npriorities\nDebate and disagreement\nare built-in features of NATO\nnot bugs\nit’s astounding how often NATO does reach consensus\nSuggesting otherwise\nplaying straight into Russian propaganda\nmisses the more\nimportant\nways it supports its allies and partners\naffinity for process\nability to build\ncommon situational understanding\nis\ninvaluable\nHabits of consultation\ninformation sharing\nbuttressed by deep cooperation\nintelligence sharing\ndefense planning\nand interoperability\ncreate the foundation upon which\nconsensus is to be built\nEven in the absence of\nagreement\nability to collectively define threats and jointly\nconfront them is immensely valuable\nhabits of cooperation give NATO members\nflexibility\nhelps members develop\ncentral to enabling them to form\ncoalitions for action\nhappened recently with ample success in taking on the Islamic State\nflexibility\na point in NATO’s favor\nnot\nineptitude\nprovide the foundation for\nallies to support\nin ways consistent with\nnational priorities outside of NATO\nNATO’s enabling value to its members\ncomplicating Putin’s cost-benefit assessment\nthis is not evidence of NATO’s ineffectiveness\nhow democratic institutions function", "role": "user" }, { "content": "still effective\nmilitarily support\ndeclining relevance\npolitical consensus\neffective and flexible\npotentially critical\ntoo high\nDebate\ndisagreement\nbuilt-in features of NATO\ndoes reach consensus\nstraight into Russian propaganda\nsituational understanding\ndeep cooperation\ncollectively define\nimmensely valuable\nflexibility\nample success\nI\nS\nfoundation\nconsistent\noutside of NATO\nthis is not evidence\ndemocratic institutions", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Cohesion’s irrelevant to alliance success.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "No consensus\nNo problem\nWhy NATO is still effective\nCritics\ninterpreted NATO’s unwillingness to militarily support Ukraine\nas\nindicator of its declining relevance\nBut that overstates\nimportance of political consensus to NATO’s value and understates\nrole as an effective and flexible defensive alliance\nwith potentially critical benefits\nsets too high a bar for an alliance\nwith aligned\nbut distinct\npriorities\nDebate and disagreement\nare built-in features of NATO\nnot bugs\nit’s astounding how often NATO does reach consensus\nSuggesting otherwise\nplaying straight into Russian propaganda\nmisses the more\nimportant\nways it supports its allies and partners\naffinity for process\nability to build\ncommon situational understanding\nis\ninvaluable\nHabits of consultation\ninformation sharing\nbuttressed by deep cooperation\nintelligence sharing\ndefense planning\nand interoperability\ncreate the foundation upon which\nconsensus is to be built\nEven in the absence of\nagreement\nability to collectively define threats and jointly\nconfront them is immensely valuable\nhabits of cooperation give NATO members\nflexibility\nhelps members develop\ncentral to enabling them to form\ncoalitions for action\nhappened recently with ample success in taking on the Islamic State\nflexibility\na point in NATO’s favor\nnot\nineptitude\nprovide the foundation for\nallies to support\nin ways consistent with\nnational priorities outside of NATO\nNATO’s enabling value to its members\ncomplicating Putin’s cost-benefit assessment\nthis is not evidence of NATO’s ineffectiveness\nhow democratic institutions function", "role": "user" }, { "content": "No consensus\nNo problem\nNATO is still effective\nCritics\ninterpreted NATO’s unwillingness to\nsupport Ukraine\nas\nindicator of\ndeclining relevance\noverstates\nimportance of\nconsensus\nand understates\nrole as\nflexible\nalliance\nDebate and disagreement\nare\nfeatures\nnot bugs\nSuggesting otherwise\nRussian propaganda\nprocess\nbuild\ncommon\nunderstanding\nconsultation\ninfo\nsharing\ncooperation\nintel\nsharing\ndefense planning\ninteroperability\ncreate\nfoundation\non which\nconsensus\nbuilt\nflexibility\nenabl\ncoalitions\nwith\nsuccess\nflexibility\na\nfavor\nnot\nineptitude\nprovide\nfoundation for\npriorities\nthis is\nhow democratic institutions function", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 4. Each new launch increases the risk of collision---there’s a risk they make the problem worse---flips try-or-die.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Even when Sputnik launched in 1957, it wasn’t alone. The shiny ball was accompanied by its core stage and payload fairing, both of which tumbled around Earth in nearby orbits. Much of the hardware we launch is similarly partnered, meaning each launch can be responsible for multiple pieces of orbital debris. Much of this “debris” is, of course, composed of hard-working satellites performing valuable jobs. But the majority is derelict, either drifting past its useful lifetime or genuine trash like the spent rocket stages. And “drifting” is a relative term here: Some objects in orbit are moving at up to 17,000 miles per hour. As human technology needs have become greater, we’ve also become more reliant on growing numbers of satellites. Newly proposed “constellations” of dozens or even thousands of satellites could greatly expand the number of artificial companions in orbit around us —communications networks more or less require them in order to deliver global coverage. The well-established Iridium satellite phone network uses 66 satellites (plus a few spares if something goes wrong — more on that below). SpaceX recently received FCC approval to launch roughly 12,000 satellites for their planned space-based internet. Many of the new generation of satellites could by tiny, but numerous. CubeSats are tiny satellites much touted as gateways for even small research groups or companies to gain access to space science, thanks to the low cost of launch and development. But that very ease of access means they’re flooding the skies in greater numbers every year. The more cluttered space becomes, the greater risk there is for a collision. And this is no hypothetical. In fact, a large fraction of the debris we know about in space is the result of just two past collisions. The first, in 2007, was China’s intentional “destruction” of a weather satellite as a test of their ability to destroy objects in space. The problem is that while they very successfully demolished the satellite (one China also owned, by the way), what they also did was turn it from one orbiting object into a few thousand, many of which are still circling us today. These drifting bits of debris are a lot harder to track than one derelict weather satellite. This alone angered other space agencies, not to even mention the thorny issue of militarizing space.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Much of the hardware we launch is\npartnered, meaning each launch can be responsible for multiple pieces of orbital debris\nworking\nthe majority is derelict\nSome objects in orbit are moving at up to 17,000 miles per hour\nwe’ve also become more reliant on growing numbers of satellites\nThe more cluttered space becomes, the greater risk there is for a collision. And this is no hypothetical.\na large fraction of the debris we know about in space is the result of just two past collisions. The first, in 2007, was China’s intentional “destruction” of a weather satellite\nwhile they very successfully demolished the satellite\nwhat they also did was turn it from one orbiting object into a few thousand, many of which are still circling us today\nThese drifting bits of debris are a lot harder to track than one derelict weather satellite", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 4. Each new launch increases the risk of collision---there’s a risk they make the problem worse---flips try-or-die.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Much of the hardware we launch is\npartnered, meaning each launch can be responsible for multiple pieces of orbital debris\nworking\nthe majority is derelict\nSome objects in orbit are moving at up to 17,000 miles per hour\nwe’ve also become more reliant on growing numbers of satellites\nThe more cluttered space becomes, the greater risk there is for a collision. And this is no hypothetical.\na large fraction of the debris we know about in space is the result of just two past collisions. The first, in 2007, was China’s intentional “destruction” of a weather satellite\nwhile they very successfully demolished the satellite\nwhat they also did was turn it from one orbiting object into a few thousand, many of which are still circling us today\nThese drifting bits of debris are a lot harder to track than one derelict weather satellite", "role": "user" }, { "content": "each launch\nmultiple pieces of orbital debris\nreliant on growing numbers of satellites\nmore cluttered space becomes, the greater risk", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 4. Each new launch increases the risk of collision---there’s a risk they make the problem worse---flips try-or-die.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Much of the hardware we launch is\npartnered, meaning each launch can be responsible for multiple pieces of orbital debris\nworking\nthe majority is derelict\nSome objects in orbit are moving at up to 17,000 miles per hour\nwe’ve also become more reliant on growing numbers of satellites\nThe more cluttered space becomes, the greater risk there is for a collision. And this is no hypothetical.\na large fraction of the debris we know about in space is the result of just two past collisions. The first, in 2007, was China’s intentional “destruction” of a weather satellite\nwhile they very successfully demolished the satellite\nwhat they also did was turn it from one orbiting object into a few thousand, many of which are still circling us today\nThese drifting bits of debris are a lot harder to track than one derelict weather satellite", "role": "user" }, { "content": "hardware\nis\npartnered, meaning each launch\nresponsible for multiple pieces of orbital debris\nthe majority is derelict\nmore cluttered space becomes, the greater risk", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 4. ‘Rights’ and ‘duties’ correlate, are legally enforceable, and constitute personhood.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The word ‘rights’ used in describing personality connotes legal relations between persons. It is interconnected with duties and it contains legally enforceable claims against others who are obliged not to breach such relations (Corbin 1920). A legal person who knows that he/she has a certain right should be able to answer the question: ‘What must another do for me?’ Corbin (1920). Hence the holder of rights needs to have the awareness of its own entitlements and others’ obligations of performance. To compel such performance, the possessor of a right is entitled to utilise the available legal recourses through the state (Corbin 1924). A right provides an option to its holder to do or not to do a certain act that is not forbidden nor commanded by law, while the act forms the content of the right in question (Terry 1916). Again, the existence of a right is a question of law, and the exercise of the right entails its holder’s conscious choice about doing or not doing something.\nAs implied above, the enjoyment of one’s rights requires the existence of duties of others and their performance of those duties. Duties of a person as a constituent element of legal relations are described as responsibilities commanded by law to do or to forbear something for the benefit of others, the failure in, or disobedience of, which will attract a remedy (Terry 1916; Corbin 1920). A person who bears a particular duty with the knowledge of its existence, compulsion in its performance, and sanctions against its disobedience, should be able to answer the question: ‘What must I do for another?’ (Corbin 1920) Similar to the enjoyment of rights, the performance of duties warrants their subject to have awareness of his/her/its (subject’s) relevant obligations, and to perform such obligations accordingly, in order to avoid legal sanctions to be exerted by the society in the event of failure or disobedience. For example, trespass to land or trespass to the person with the required guilty mind demonstrates disobedience to one’s obligations to refrain from doing so, thus committing trespass attracts liability under both torts and criminal law.\nThe rights and duties discussed above as essential ingredients of personality justify the ascription of personhood from the viewpoint of its purposes. The principal purpose of legal personhood, conferred on whomever or whatever, is to facilitate the regulation of human conduct by an organised society (Smith 1928). This facilitation is effected through the regulation of the conduct of the subjects of law by reference to legal relations, while conduct includes both acts and omissions (Terry 1916). Generally, any legal liability is imposed for a breach of someone’s right with an ultimate objective of maintaining order in the society. For example, killing of a person by an intentional act or a grossly negligent omission is penalised due to the violation of the right to life of the deceased. To this end, the imposition of a duty aims to prevent consequences which may come about in the absence or non-performance of the duty at hand; the duty not to kill someone aims to avoid that death, for example (Terry 1916). This consequence can amount to a violation of one’s right (Terry 1916). According to Lundstedt’s conception of the meaning of legal right, the sole purpose for which law exists is to prevent harm of the community or to confer social benefit (Lundstedt cited in Allen 1931). The law protects these rights by imposing duties on others and providing remedies against any breach thereof. More precisely, as West terms it, a ‘breach of duty is an act of injustice’ (West 2010).\nThe duty imposed on a person is said to correspond to the right of another where the former owes the duty to the latter; however, when the duty is imposed by criminal law, it is regarded as owed to the state (Terry 1916). Some of the paramount duties imposed by law generally include: (1) duties not to do any act which will cause injuries or death to others; (2) duties of possessors of actively dangerous things, such as ferocious animals or man-made treacherous products (industrial or social robots, for example) to prevent them from causing harm; and (3) duties not to take possession of property in violation of others’ rights or legal interest (Terry 1916). A legal interest is defined as ‘[t]he aggregate of the legal relations of a person with respect to some specific physical object or the physical relations of specific objects’ (Corbin 1920).\nCase law has consistently recognised the correlative rights and duties that attach to legal personhood. Footnote 6 It is judicially recognised that ‘[s]o far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties…. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition’ People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project Inc v Lavery (Lavery). Most recently the Supreme Court of New York (NY-SC) in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Stanley (Stanley) upheld that the autonomy and self-determination of any entity are not regarded as the basis for granting it rights (Stanley 2015). Rather, the Appellate Division of the NY-SC (NY-SCAD) in Lavery (2014), which was followed in Stanley, applied the prevailing attributes of personality, in determining the personhood of a chimpanzee, that legal personhood has unfailingly been defined by reference to both rights and duties (Lavery 2014). Central to the legal personality is thus the ability to enjoy rights and to discharge duties (Duff 1929).\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The word ‘rights’ used in describing personality connotes legal relations between persons. It is interconnected with duties and it contains legally enforceable claims against others who are obliged not to breach such relations\nA right provides an option to its holder to do or not to do a certain act\nthe existence of a right is a question of law, and the exercise of the right entails its holder’s conscious choice about doing or not doing something\nDuties\nare\nresponsibilities commanded by law to do or to forbear something for the benefit of others, the failure in, or disobedience of, which will attract a remedy\nThe rights and duties\njustify\nascription of personhood\nThe duty imposed on a person is said to correspond to the right of another\nCase law has consistently recognised the correlative rights and duties that attach to legal personhood\nIt is judicially recognised that\n[s]o far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties\nPersons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 4. ‘Rights’ and ‘duties’ correlate, are legally enforceable, and constitute personhood.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The word ‘rights’ used in describing personality connotes legal relations between persons. It is interconnected with duties and it contains legally enforceable claims against others who are obliged not to breach such relations (Corbin 1920). A legal person who knows that he/she has a certain right should be able to answer the question: ‘What must another do for me?’ Corbin (1920). Hence the holder of rights needs to have the awareness of its own entitlements and others’ obligations of performance. To compel such performance, the possessor of a right is entitled to utilise the available legal recourses through the state (Corbin 1924). A right provides an option to its holder to do or not to do a certain act that is not forbidden nor commanded by law, while the act forms the content of the right in question (Terry 1916). Again, the existence of a right is a question of law, and the exercise of the right entails its holder’s conscious choice about doing or not doing something.\nAs implied above, the enjoyment of one’s rights requires the existence of duties of others and their performance of those duties. Duties of a person as a constituent element of legal relations are described as responsibilities commanded by law to do or to forbear something for the benefit of others, the failure in, or disobedience of, which will attract a remedy (Terry 1916; Corbin 1920). A person who bears a particular duty with the knowledge of its existence, compulsion in its performance, and sanctions against its disobedience, should be able to answer the question: ‘What must I do for another?’ (Corbin 1920) Similar to the enjoyment of rights, the performance of duties warrants their subject to have awareness of his/her/its (subject’s) relevant obligations, and to perform such obligations accordingly, in order to avoid legal sanctions to be exerted by the society in the event of failure or disobedience. For example, trespass to land or trespass to the person with the required guilty mind demonstrates disobedience to one’s obligations to refrain from doing so, thus committing trespass attracts liability under both torts and criminal law.\nThe rights and duties discussed above as essential ingredients of personality justify the ascription of personhood from the viewpoint of its purposes. The principal purpose of legal personhood, conferred on whomever or whatever, is to facilitate the regulation of human conduct by an organised society (Smith 1928). This facilitation is effected through the regulation of the conduct of the subjects of law by reference to legal relations, while conduct includes both acts and omissions (Terry 1916). Generally, any legal liability is imposed for a breach of someone’s right with an ultimate objective of maintaining order in the society. For example, killing of a person by an intentional act or a grossly negligent omission is penalised due to the violation of the right to life of the deceased. To this end, the imposition of a duty aims to prevent consequences which may come about in the absence or non-performance of the duty at hand; the duty not to kill someone aims to avoid that death, for example (Terry 1916). This consequence can amount to a violation of one’s right (Terry 1916). According to Lundstedt’s conception of the meaning of legal right, the sole purpose for which law exists is to prevent harm of the community or to confer social benefit (Lundstedt cited in Allen 1931). The law protects these rights by imposing duties on others and providing remedies against any breach thereof. More precisely, as West terms it, a ‘breach of duty is an act of injustice’ (West 2010).\nThe duty imposed on a person is said to correspond to the right of another where the former owes the duty to the latter; however, when the duty is imposed by criminal law, it is regarded as owed to the state (Terry 1916). Some of the paramount duties imposed by law generally include: (1) duties not to do any act which will cause injuries or death to others; (2) duties of possessors of actively dangerous things, such as ferocious animals or man-made treacherous products (industrial or social robots, for example) to prevent them from causing harm; and (3) duties not to take possession of property in violation of others’ rights or legal interest (Terry 1916). A legal interest is defined as ‘[t]he aggregate of the legal relations of a person with respect to some specific physical object or the physical relations of specific objects’ (Corbin 1920).\nCase law has consistently recognised the correlative rights and duties that attach to legal personhood. Footnote 6 It is judicially recognised that ‘[s]o far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties…. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal recognition’ People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project Inc v Lavery (Lavery). Most recently the Supreme Court of New York (NY-SC) in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Stanley (Stanley) upheld that the autonomy and self-determination of any entity are not regarded as the basis for granting it rights (Stanley 2015). Rather, the Appellate Division of the NY-SC (NY-SCAD) in Lavery (2014), which was followed in Stanley, applied the prevailing attributes of personality, in determining the personhood of a chimpanzee, that legal personhood has unfailingly been defined by reference to both rights and duties (Lavery 2014). Central to the legal personality is thus the ability to enjoy rights and to discharge duties (Duff 1929).\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "word\nlegal relations\ninterconnected\nlegally enforceable claims\nobliged\noption\nquestion of law\nexercise\nconscious choice\nresponsibilities commanded by law\nremedy\nascription of personhood\ncorrespond\nright of another\nconsistently recognised\ncorrelative\njudicially recognised\nany being\nsubstances\nattributes", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 4. ‘Rights’ and ‘duties’ correlate, are legally enforceable, and constitute personhood.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The word ‘rights’ used in describing personality connotes legal relations between persons. It is interconnected with duties and it contains legally enforceable claims against others who are obliged not to breach such relations\nA right provides an option to its holder to do or not to do a certain act\nthe existence of a right is a question of law, and the exercise of the right entails its holder’s conscious choice about doing or not doing something\nDuties\nare\nresponsibilities commanded by law to do or to forbear something for the benefit of others, the failure in, or disobedience of, which will attract a remedy\nThe rights and duties\njustify\nascription of personhood\nThe duty imposed on a person is said to correspond to the right of another\nCase law has consistently recognised the correlative rights and duties that attach to legal personhood\nIt is judicially recognised that\n[s]o far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties\nPersons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes", "role": "user" }, { "content": "word ‘rights’ used in describing personality connotes legal relations\nIt is interconnected with duties and it contains legally enforceable claims against others who are obliged\nA right provides an option to its holder to do or not to do a certain act\nexistence\nis a question of law,\nDuties\nare\nresponsibilities commanded by law\nrights and duties\njustify\nascription of personhood\nduty imposed on a person\ncorrespond to the right of another\nCase law has consistently recognised the correlative rights and duties that attach to l\np\njudicially recognised\nperson is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties\nPersons are\nsubstances\nrights and duties are\nattributes", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 7. South Korea will leak.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In South Korea, there exists a rather “dysfunctional” relationship between the intelligence community, the policymakers and the public. Scandals of intelligence officers directly intervening in domestic politics have caused deep suspicion amongst the public, with few citizens understanding the role that intelligence agencies play or their need for secrecy. On the other hand, policymakers are often allegedly denied intelligence due to fears amongst agencies that it will be leaked. This lack of trust and ROK’s domestic politics have frequently led to obstacles in intelligence sharing with other partner states—Seoul’s refusal to ratify GSOMIA being an example. Such domestic dysfunction could risk FVEY’s perceptions regarding Seoul’s potentiality as a seamless partner to the alliance and impact their willingness to share critical intelligence on a default basis.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "there exists a\n“dysfunctional” relationship between the intelligence community\npolicymakers and the public\nScandals of intelligence officers\nintervening in domestic politics\ncaused deep suspicion\npolicymakers are\nallegedly denied intelligence due to fears amongst agencies\nit will be leaked\nlack of trust and ROK’s domestic politics\nfrequently led to obstacles in intelligence sharing with other partner states", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 7. South Korea will leak.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In South Korea, there exists a rather “dysfunctional” relationship between the intelligence community, the policymakers and the public. Scandals of intelligence officers directly intervening in domestic politics have caused deep suspicion amongst the public, with few citizens understanding the role that intelligence agencies play or their need for secrecy. On the other hand, policymakers are often allegedly denied intelligence due to fears amongst agencies that it will be leaked. This lack of trust and ROK’s domestic politics have frequently led to obstacles in intelligence sharing with other partner states—Seoul’s refusal to ratify GSOMIA being an example. Such domestic dysfunction could risk FVEY’s perceptions regarding Seoul’s potentiality as a seamless partner to the alliance and impact their willingness to share critical intelligence on a default basis.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "“dysfunctional” relationship\ni\nc\npolicymakers\npublic\nintervening\nallegedly denied intelligence\nfears\nleaked\nlack of trust\nROK’s domestic politics\n led to obstacles", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 7. South Korea will leak.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "there exists a\n“dysfunctional” relationship between the intelligence community\npolicymakers and the public\nScandals of intelligence officers\nintervening in domestic politics\ncaused deep suspicion\npolicymakers are\nallegedly denied intelligence due to fears amongst agencies\nit will be leaked\nlack of trust and ROK’s domestic politics\nfrequently led to obstacles in intelligence sharing with other partner states", "role": "user" }, { "content": "exists\ndysfunctional\ni\nc\npolicymakers and\npublic\nScandals\ncaused deep suspicion\npolicymakers\ndenied intel\ndue t\nfears\nit will be leaked\nlack of trust and\ndomestic politics\nled to obstacles", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: GOP rhetoric is irrelevant unless Biden chooses to embrace their agenda", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Despite Biden following through with his commitment to the China challenge, “some Republicans could choose to advocate for unrealistically aggressive policies, banking on looking tougher than Democrats because the Biden administration will want to avoid outright brinkmanship,” Ashton said.\nTo override a presidential veto, Republicans would need a two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers – a prospect polls indicate is unlikely to materialise. Short of holding a vetoproof majority in Congress, Republicans would only be able to urge the Biden administration to stand firm in its China policy, rather than dictate it.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Despite Biden following through with\ncommitment to the China challenge, “some Republicans could\nadvocate\nunrealistically aggressive policies, banking on looking tougher than Democrats\nTo override a presidential veto, Republicans would need a two-thirds majority\na prospect\nunlikely to materialise. Short of holding a vetoproof majority\nRepublicans would only be able to urge\nBiden\nto stand firm in its China policy, rather than dictate it", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: GOP rhetoric is irrelevant unless Biden chooses to embrace their agenda", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Despite Biden following through with\ncommitment to the China challenge, “some Republicans could\nadvocate\nunrealistically aggressive policies, banking on looking tougher than Democrats\nTo override a presidential veto, Republicans would need a two-thirds majority\na prospect\nunlikely to materialise. Short of holding a vetoproof majority\nRepublicans would only be able to urge\nBiden\nto stand firm in its China policy, rather than dictate it", "role": "user" }, { "content": "advocate\nunrealistically aggressive policies\nunlikely to materialise\nonly be able to urge\nrather than dictate it", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: GOP rhetoric is irrelevant unless Biden chooses to embrace their agenda\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Despite Biden following through with\ncommitment to the China challenge, “some Republicans could\nadvocate\nunrealistically aggressive policies, banking on looking tougher than Democrats\nTo override a presidential veto, Republicans would need a two-thirds majority\na prospect\nunlikely to materialise. Short of holding a vetoproof majority\nRepublicans would only be able to urge\nBiden\nto stand firm in its China policy, rather than dictate it", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Despite Biden following through\nto the China challenge\nRepublicans could\nadvocate\nunrealistically aggressive policies, banking on looking tougher\nTo override\nveto, Republicans\nneed\ntwo-thirds\nunlikely to materialise\nRepublicans would only be able to urge\nBiden\nto stand firm\nrather than dictate it", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: No readiness internal link—troops will work without pay.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nOn Wednesday, House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., at the annual Defense News Conference said the military could be among the hardest hit government institutions by a shutdown. Even if money is not available for all military operations, troops (and some Defense Department civilians) will still be required to continue manning their posts even as their pay is withheld because of a lack of approved funding.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Adam Smith\nsaid the military could be among the hardest hit government institutions by a shutdown. Even if money is not available for all military operations, troops (and some Defense Department civilians) will still be required to continue manning their posts even as their pay is withheld because of a lack of approved funding", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: No readiness internal link—troops will work without pay.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Adam Smith\nsaid the military could be among the hardest hit government institutions by a shutdown. Even if money is not available for all military operations, troops (and some Defense Department civilians) will still be required to continue manning their posts even as their pay is withheld because of a lack of approved funding", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Even if money is not available\ntroops\nwill still be required to\nman\ntheir posts even as their pay is withheld because of a lack of\nfunding", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Independently, unaccountable military AI turns the Global South into a new frontier for colonial violence---legal checks are critical.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Payne argued that changes in the psychological element underpinning deterrence are among the most striking features of the AI revolution in strategic affairs: ‘Removing emotion from nuclear strategy was not ultimately possible; artificial intelligence makes it possible, and therein lies its true radicalism and greatest risk’.25 In other words, loosely unleashed, AI has the power to raise uncertainty to the highest degrees, thickening Clausewitz’s fog of war rather than dissipating it. The situation would become untenable if a non-biological AGI were ever deployed for military purposes, virtually unaffected by typically human cognitive heuristics, perceptions, and biases.\nCompounded with a free-for-all security environment, in such a brave new world the Global South would be exposed to all sorts of vulnerabilities, lagging behind (again) in economic, scientific, and technological development, as well as becoming an open ground for data-predation and cyber-colonization, further exacerbating inequalities among nations, disempowerment, and marginalization, as Pauwels suggested. Small, tech-taking developing countries may well turn into data-reservoirs and testbeds for dual-use technologies, precisely because they lack technical expertise, scale, and scientific knowledge to take effective countermeasures against tech-leading powers.26\nFortunately, all these troubling scenarios are not forcibly inescapable and should ideally be minimized through responsible governance strategies. What does it mean? A broad definition of AI policymaking strategy has been proposed as ‘a research field that analyzes the policymaking process and draws implications for policy design, advocacy, organizational strategy, and AI governance as a whole’.27 Specifically on security issues, Maas singled out four distinct rationales for preventing, channeling, or containing the proliferation, production, development, or deployment of military technologies: ethics, legality, stability, or safety. From his analysis of lessons learned from arms control of nuclear weapons, he concluded inter alia that ‘far from being inevitable, the proliferation of powerful technologies such as military AI might be slowed or halted through the institutionalization of norms’.28\nNorms and other approaches to mitigate risks are one of the possible responses to the negative side of AI technology. A recent study identified several of these unsettling aspects of AI: increased risk of war or a first strike; disruption in deterrence and strategic parity; flawed data and computer vision; data manipulation; ineffective crisis management; unexpected results; failure in human-machine coordination; backlash in public perception; inaccuracy in decision- making; and public sector-private sector tensions.29 The current deficit in explainability on how neural networks reach a given outcome is likewise raising uneasiness: AI’s black box opacity could increase the sense of insecurity rather than provide strategic reassurance.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Removing emotion from\nstrategy\nnot\npossible\na\ni\nmakes it possible, and therein lies\ngreatest risk\nunleashed, AI has the power to raise uncertainty\nthickening\nfog of war\nsituation would become untenable\nin such a\nworld\nGlobal South would be exposed to all sorts of vulnerabilities\nbecoming\nopen ground for data-predation and cyber-colonization\nexacerbating inequalities among nations, disempowerment, and marginalization\ncountries may well turn into data-reservoirs and testbeds for dual-use tech\nbecause they lack\nexpertise\nto take\ncountermeasures against tech\npowers\nscenarios are not\ninescapable\nshould\n be minimized through responsible governance\non security issues, Maas singled out\nrationales for preventing\ndeployment of military tech\nethics, legality\nor safety\nmilitary AI might be\nhalted through\ninstitutionalization of norms\nNorms\nto mitigate risks are\nresponse\nto the negative side of AI tech\nstudy identified several\nunsettling aspects of AI: increased risk of war or a first strike\nAI’s black box opacity could increase\ninsecurity", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Independently, unaccountable military AI turns the Global South into a new frontier for colonial violence---legal checks are critical.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Removing emotion from\nstrategy\nnot\npossible\na\ni\nmakes it possible, and therein lies\ngreatest risk\nunleashed, AI has the power to raise uncertainty\nthickening\nfog of war\nsituation would become untenable\nin such a\nworld\nGlobal South would be exposed to all sorts of vulnerabilities\nbecoming\nopen ground for data-predation and cyber-colonization\nexacerbating inequalities among nations, disempowerment, and marginalization\ncountries may well turn into data-reservoirs and testbeds for dual-use tech\nbecause they lack\nexpertise\nto take\ncountermeasures against tech\npowers\nscenarios are not\ninescapable\nshould\n be minimized through responsible governance\non security issues, Maas singled out\nrationales for preventing\ndeployment of military tech\nethics, legality\nor safety\nmilitary AI might be\nhalted through\ninstitutionalization of norms\nNorms\nto mitigate risks are\nresponse\nto the negative side of AI tech\nstudy identified several\nunsettling aspects of AI: increased risk of war or a first strike\nAI’s black box opacity could increase\ninsecurity", "role": "user" }, { "content": "emotion\nnot\npossible\na\ni\ngreatest risk\nunleashed\nuncertainty\nfog of war\nuntenable\nGlobal South\nall sorts\nvulnerabilities\nopen ground\ndata-predation\ncyber-colonization\ninequalities\nmarginalization\ndata-reservoirs\ntestbeds\ndual-use tech\ncountermeasures\nnot\ninescapable\nresponsible\nrationales\npreventing\ndeployment\nethics\nlegality\nsafety\nhalted\ninstitutionalization\nnorms\nmitigate\nresponse\nnegative\nunsettling\nfirst strike\nopacity\ninsecurity", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Independently, unaccountable military AI turns the Global South into a new frontier for colonial violence---legal checks are critical.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Removing emotion from\nstrategy\nnot\npossible\na\ni\nmakes it possible, and therein lies\ngreatest risk\nunleashed, AI has the power to raise uncertainty\nthickening\nfog of war\nsituation would become untenable\nin such a\nworld\nGlobal South would be exposed to all sorts of vulnerabilities\nbecoming\nopen ground for data-predation and cyber-colonization\nexacerbating inequalities among nations, disempowerment, and marginalization\ncountries may well turn into data-reservoirs and testbeds for dual-use tech\nbecause they lack\nexpertise\nto take\ncountermeasures against tech\npowers\nscenarios are not\ninescapable\nshould\n be minimized through responsible governance\non security issues, Maas singled out\nrationales for preventing\ndeployment of military tech\nethics, legality\nor safety\nmilitary AI might be\nhalted through\ninstitutionalization of norms\nNorms\nto mitigate risks are\nresponse\nto the negative side of AI tech\nstudy identified several\nunsettling aspects of AI: increased risk of war or a first strike\nAI’s black box opacity could increase\ninsecurity", "role": "user" }, { "content": "a\ni\nlies\ngreatest risk\nunleashed, AI has\npower to raise uncertainty\nthickening\nfog of war\nGlobal South\nexposed to all\nvulnerabilities\nbecoming\nopen\nfor\npredation and\ncolonization\ncountries\nturn into\nreservoirs and testbeds for dual-use tech\nbecause they lack\ncountermeasures\nscenarios\nshould\nbe minimized through responsible governance\nrationales for preventing\ndeployment\nlegality\nor safety\nmilitary AI might be\nhalted through\ninstitutionalization\nNorms\nto mitigate risks are\nresponse\nto\nnegative side of AI", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: We meet—we vest duties in AI - programmed constraints on military AI are duties—even if accountability is on humans.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nIntroduction\nThe continued advances in computer science, engineering and robotics have led to a rapid development of enhanced computability offering superior artificial intelligence and robotics. In due course these may herald the possibility of near-human, comparable-to-human and even beyond-human capability that requires an increased fidelity in appraisal of these technologies (Ashrafian et al. 2014). The prospect of sentient, rational and self-conscious artificial intelligence agents has led to the conceptual consideration of robot and artificially intelligent rights and laws that consider human societal and artificial intelligence agent relationships, as well as the relationships between artificial intelligent agents themselves (Ashrafian 2014).\nRights in human society are counterbalanced by the need for commensurate responsibilities and duties. Consequently, the idea of artificial intelligence and robot rights necessitates a matching level of societal responsibility and duty. Addressing this issue represents the discernable next-step for evolution in this field. This manuscript discusses the philosophical and practical considerations for artificial intelligence and robotic responsibilities and identifies the societal and moral considerations for these agents beyond that of rights, addressing translational concepts including the sophistication of robots and artificial intelligences.\nWhen considering the moral responsibilities of the robots in the case, some basic questions arise: (1) Should robots have helped the injured children on moral grounds? Even if this meant that the war could be delayed or even potentially lost; with possibly many more deaths from both warring sides? (2) At a broader level what is the moral responsibility of self-conscious, rational and sentient artificial intelligence?\nMoral Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence\nIn order to appraise the responsibilities of artificial intelligences and robots, there are several core philosophical positions that require consideration (Fig. 1). These include the contemplation of moral responsibility through Determinism and Libertarianism. Determinism represents that all events are pre-‘determined’ and therefore negate the concept of free will so that individual choice and therefore responsibility are disavowed. Conversely libertarianism denotes that individuals have moral responsibility derived from their innate free will in making personal decisions. Determinism can be divided into soft and hard. Soft determinism or Compatibilism represents a ‘middle road’ supporting the role of moral responsibility where decisions are made by free will within a context of determinism. Compatibilism in turn is differentiated from Incompatibilism, which consists of Libertarianism (Agent-Causal and Event-Causal) and Hard-Determinism and rejects any element of free will or choice due to the explanation that all events (and therefore individual decisions and actions) are totally pre-determined by the laws of nature. Currently, the most favored school of philosophy when considering moral responsibility is compatibilism.\nThe determinist school classically describes ‘humans as robots or automatons’ as their actions are fundamentally predetermined by natural laws. Consequently the hard determinist view of the case above where the robots assist the children could only be explained through the fact that the robots could demonstrate free will or responsibility to help the children unless they had been pre-programmed to specifically do so. Conversely the libertarian view would be that the robots were rational and sentient beings with free will, and as a result of personal moral responsibility went to the aid of the children despite knowing that through these actions they would lose their strategic position in the war. The compatibilist view would be one where each robot was constructed to achieve free will and decisionmaking capability through programmed rationality and sentience. Thus whilst they had been preset to carry out a military task; their free will and their moral responsibility led to their prioritizing the health of the injured children over their predetermined task to gain a strategic position in the war.\nOne thought experiment designed to consider hard determinism might also offer a deeper contemplation of strong artificial intelligence (exceeding human intelligence). If hard determinism was to hold true, a hypothetical ultimate supercomputer that is cognizant of all knowledge to-date can be used to predict individual human choices and future events based on the raw analysis of every fact and trend that preceded any event. If such a predicting computer (representing strong AI) could not exist, then the actuality of hard determinism would be negated.\nBoth compatibilists and libertarians offer explanations that the robots in the above case are more than the product of their construction and programming, so that they demonstrate sentiments of sympathy and empathy toward the injured children. Ultimately the question of whether these robots have a moral responsibility requires the establishment of whether the robots have a free will to carry out their own actions. A hard determinist would argue that all robotic and artificially intelligent actions are due to the laws of physics and as such the robots would not carry any responsibility. Conversely according to libertarians, the robots have a ‘soul’; so they demonstrate a free will with which to have moral responsibility, which in this case guided them to help the children. An incompatibilist view is problematical and may be evaluated by a thought experiment whereby human beings are enhanced by an implant that can control their desires so that they have no free will (Harris 2010). If the implant stimulates desires at random, then the human remains without free will, however his decisions and choices are reminiscent and generally undistinguishable from actual human actions. From the compatibilist view, the robots are governed by the laws of physics and their programming, however these can be designed and actioned in such a way that the robots can exhibit free will, which consequently results in the robots having moral responsibility. \nThe libertarian understanding of free will derives from the notion that individuals have the ability to do something differently or otherwise through the principle of alternative possibilities. Harry Frankfurt developed thought experiments (Frankfurt 1969) that counter this notion. He uses subjects that are responsible for their actions through intuition despite lacking the freedom to act differently. For our established robotic incident, the following can be an example of a Frankfurt-type case:\nWarfare Robot A is likely to complete his mission of achieving military victory for his country whilst also considering the welfare of any local inhabitants (friend or foe) embroiled in the war (as set out by international treaties). There is only one reason that he will not consider the welfare of local inhabitants; only if they represent a direct threat to his country’s victory or threat to his human or robotic country-mates. Robot A’s programmer Y is keen to guarantee that Robot A does consider the welfare of the local populace during his war efforts so that he adds a specific implant into Robot A’s neural system that can override A’s programming in any case that he decides to consider against the welfare of local inhabitants during warfare. During the war, Robot A does prioritize human welfare during a battle (by helping injured civilian children) on his own accord so that programmer Y does not activate A’s special implant. Consequently, Robot A is responsible for considering the needs of local inhabitants during a robotic fought war although, according to Programmer Y’s implant, Robot A lacks freedom to do differently/otherwise.\nFrankfurt’s case thus opposes incompatibilism and supports the compatibilist notion that whilst sentient, rational robots and artificial intelligences are the product of their constructors and programmers. As such, they maintain moral responsibility in the society (both human and artificially intelligent) within which they exist.\nBeyond the meta-physical elements of moral responsibility, there is an interpretation of responsibility through moral sentimentalism. This is consistent with a compatibilist framework, which in the case of robots suggest that their actions may have taken place as a result of a response to inherent emotions. The robots that have established a moral responsibility would have then prioritized the well being of the children over their national aims of military victory.\nThe compatibilist account offers different degrees of free will and responsibility. Harry Frankfurt suggests a distinction in the levels of freedom through a hierarchy of desires (first order, second order and so on). Within the case Robot A may have a conflict in his desires, he may have a first order desire to help injured humans and a second order desire to achieve victory through warfare. Although at a utilitarian level, winning the war may save many more lives than those of a few injured children, Robot A’s hierarchy of desires leads to an internal conflict with regard to responsibility. To a degree Robot A is not fully in control of himself (with the aim of fulfilling one single goal), so he is less free, but nonetheless resultantly prioritizes the lives of the injured children over the larger and long term goal of winning the war.\nComparison with the Moral Responsibility of Animals \nWhen considering the responsibilities and duties of sentient and rational artificial intelligence agents and robots, one direct comparison might be with another group of non-human sentient beings such as animals and pets. Conceptually they offer many similarities and can provide insights about non-human responsibilities. Peter Singer specified that ‘‘Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh’’ (Singer 1979). There are several analogous elements between animals and artificial intelligence agents and robots. Many animals are reared by humans to fulfill specific duties in human society (such as guide dogs). In many cases they are also specifically bred (with defined genotypes, phenotypes and traits) and subsequently trained for specific tasks. In a similar way robots and artificially intelligent agents are specifically designed, built and subsequently programmed for specific tasks. \nWild animals have moral codes, and many animals demonstrate a ‘social homeostasis’ through their social networks and relationships. They have been shown to demonstrate a ‘wild justice’ (Bekoff and Pierce 2009) where they express emotions, behavioral flexibility, reciprocity, empathy, trust and discernable duty. These are also characteristics that would exist in future robots and artificial intelligence agents. From a purely ethical viewpoint, the question of morality is independent to an individual’s species of origin; although at a practical level human beings have been dominant. Non-human animals species are subordinate to mankind and in a similar fashion robots and artificially intelligent agents will also be subordinate to humans. The question of animal rights has many well-established viewpoints, and there is an implicit consensus that at a practical level a utilitarian approach is applied to offer rights to animals where feasible. Nevertheless, there is a tacit recognition that animals carry a moral responsibility that requires the consideration of their moral value. \nHowever, any direct moral comparison between sentient, rational artificial intelligence agents and robots with animals may prove superficial and problematic. The source of relevant moral actions should be distinguished from the evaluation of the agent as being morally responsible for a certain behavior, as otherwise we may encounter the situation of having to legally charge or prosecute animals in a similar manner to archaic societies. This is represented in today’s legal systems, which still addresses animals as reasonable targets of human censorship although it is accepted that it would be nonsensical to praise or blame them for their behavior. Consequently the parallel of robots and animals may not be fruitful, as we do not charge animals with moral accusations. Sentient and rational artificial intelligence agents and robots would have essential psychological qualities so as to make them both morally and legally responsible.\nPractical Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence \nWhilst conceptually there are favorable arguments supporting the moral value and moral responsibility of artificial intelligence agents and robots beyond simply considering their rights (Ashrafian 2014; Ashrafian et al. 2014), the introduction and application of responsibilities and duties requires realistic guidelines and protocols. For humans several such guidelines exist, though they are not as well recognized as the more acknowledged Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations 1948). Two specific declarations for Human responsibilities include The Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities by the UNESCO supported VTMF (Valencia Third Millennium Foundation), also known as the 1998 Valencia Declaration or DHDR (VTMF and UNESCO 1998) and 1997 Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (UDHRes) (InterAction Council 1997) (Fig. 2). The DHDR specifies that ‘‘responsibility’’, ‘‘is an obligation that is legally binding under existing international law’’ and that ‘‘duty’’ is an ‘‘ethical or moral obligation’’. Here it is proposed that as artificial intelligence agents and robots occupy human society with protection and support from humanity-based rights, then the principal message of these core human responsibilities will apply equally to the non-human artificial intelligences and robots, with the stipulated modification that human needs are to be prioritized over artificial intelligence and robot needs. The articles will together include those of: (1) Justice and Solidarity, (2) Mutual Respect and Partnership, (3) Truthfulness and Tolerance, (4) Fundamental Principles for Humanity (InterAction Council 1997), (5) Human Security and an Equitable International Order, (6) Meaningful Participation in Public Affairs, (7) Freedom of Opinion, Expression, Assembly, Association and Religion, (8) The Right to Personal and Physical Integrity, (9) Equality, (10) Rights of the Child and the Elderly, (11) Work, Quality of Life and Standard of Living, (12) Right to a Remedy, (13) Education, Arts and Culture (VTMF and UNESCO 1998) and (14) NonViolence and Respect for Life/The Right to Life and Human Security (InterAction Council 1997; VTMF and UNESCO 1998) (Fig. 2). \nMuch in the same way that there has been consideration of human-artificial intelligence laws as well as artificial intelligence-on-artificial intelligence (AIonAI) laws (Ashrafian 2014), the responsibilities for artificial intelligence technologies should also consider human-AI and AIonAI elements. Consequently Article 1 of the UDHRes can be modified to: \nEvery person or individual, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, technological origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a primary responsibility to treat all human people in a humane way, and if this is not conflicted, has an added secondary responsibility to treat all non-human artificially intelligent individuals in a humane way. \nOther elements are equally relevant to humans and artificial intelligence agents such as Article 4 ‘‘What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to other,’’ and Article 11 considering ‘‘advancement of the human race’’. Many of the principles should highlight the priority to act responsibly in favor of human life and culture over that of non-human artificial intelligence, but where possible to acknowledge the importance of these. For example human security and right to life should be ranked higher than the robotic equivalent, even for the robots and artificial intelligences themselves, however where possible the survival of both should be considered. Furthermore, whilst robots and artificial intelligences can contribute to the responsibility and support of human political rights, human freedom of expression and human culture, they themselves may not stand for political office over humans, override their freedom over humans or enforce their culture onto humans. Whilst all their socio-cultural merits should be celebrated, the fundamental partiality to favor human needs should be maintained by artificial intelligence agents and robots. \nThe determination of the status of artificial intelligence agents and robots with responsibility and supporting laws requires comparative societal governance. According to the current appreciation of artificial intelligence, most robots occupy the master-salve paradigm where no independence of action beyond direct human volition is permitted. This contrasts with future artificial intelligence abilities of self-consciousness, rationality and sentience demonstrated in the initial case where the robots could wage war through independent decisions on behalf of their warring states. The current outlook for such artificial intelligence agents still rests on existence through service and subordinacy to human society. Within this paradigm, robots and artificial intelligence agents will demonstrate free will and morality, but also require societal security and welfare constraints so that in the preliminary phases of these technological advances detailed socio-political controls for robots and artificial intelligence agents must be determined. For example there will be a restriction on robot self-recreation, the ability to carry out independent business or public office. Nevertheless robots and artificial intelligences will be supported by rights and common laws and will contribute to society. As a consequence, the question arises of how human society recognizes a non-human being that is selfconscious, sentient and rational with ability at comparable-to-human (or even beyond-human) levels? \nWithin this context, a precedent already exists. In the ancient world ‘foreign’ or ‘non-national’ individuals (who by definition had comparable human aptitude) have been accepted to have different degrees of societal status and rights as recognized by formal law, for example in the ancient Roman Empire (30BC-212AD) (Shumway 1901). Under the Ius Gentium law (Fig. 3), Roman citizens were given a full complement of rights (through Ius Civile) whilst there were several classes of free individuals, including people of Latin (from Latium), Peregrinus (Provincial people from throughout the empire) and Libertus (Freed slave) status.\nLatin rights (Ius Latinum) offered an intermediary stage to full Roman citizenship through the ability to carry out business, marry, participate in the military to some degree and have international legal recognition. Peregrinus rights however offered a lesser status, so that inter-marriage and business was not permitted, although societal contribution such as acting as auxiliary soldiers was acceptable. A comparable system could be applied to future artificial intelligence and robotics (Fig. 3). Here robots would likely occupy Peregrinus or possibly partial-Latin status, where they would not self-replicate, stand in public office or own land and business but would be protected by the law and have the ability to contribute to society through examples such as defending nations and participating in the healthcare sector. \nUltimately the application of an equivalent Roman-like system of laws for artificial intelligence agents and robots may progress just as those of the Romans themselves. In the first instance Roman lawyers were pragmatic and their law demonstrated that some slaves enjoyed significant autonomy. The ‘elite’ slaves, as in the case of the emperor’s slaves, were estate managers, bankers and merchants, holding important jobs as public servants, or entering into binding contracts, managing and making use of property for their masters’ family business. In fact some slaves were able to retain property (known as peculium) for personal management and use. The peculium was inaccessible by the owner, which could eventually be used to purchase their freedom though was technically the property of the head of the household. A similar system of a digital peculium has been envisaged for robots (Pagallo 2012) and could contribute in the broader application of Roman legal status as an exemplar for the legal status of future artificial intelligence agents and robots. Furthermore, after some time the Romans introduced the Edict of Caracalla or Antonine Constitution (Constitutio Antoniniana) in 212AD (likely to increase the number of individuals subject to taxation). Here Roman citizenship was granted to all ‘‘freeborn’’ men throughout the Empire whereas all freeborn women in the empire would receive the same rights as Roman women. Taken to its eventual conclusion, the continual advances in artificially intelligence agents and robots may herald their status of fully-fledged personalities with an accompanying level of higher legal and moral responsibilities but also a higher degree of rights. Here each type of legal personality could potentially be met by appropriate artificial intelligence agents (Chopra and White 2011). Consequently one possibility is that a legal personhood status might ensue for robots and artificial intelligence agents (Solum 1992) as result of a future ‘‘Caracalla approach.’’ \nWhilst an exact replica of ancient Roman law is not the direct solution to the practical introduction of robots and artificial intelligence agents within mankind’s communities, its parallels nevertheless offer some degree of perceptiveness regarding the introduction of such agents into human society.\nConclusion \nThe ongoing developments and innovations in artificial intelligence and robotics offer the promised capacity of computer consciousness, sentience and rationality.\nThese have propelled the philosophical consideration of artificial intelligence and robot rights. The discernable next-step for evolution in this field necessitates attention to the moral responsibilities and duties of artificial intelligence and robots. Various philosophical stances can be engaged ranging from determinism to libertarianism and lend support to a middle ground of compatibilism. Such a position requires a commensurate adoption of responsibilities and duties for the advancement of human and artificial intelligence societies. These broad obligations require accountability within the context of prioritizing human aims and needs within the framework of a robust legal platform. The broader application of noblesse oblige where a leader fulfills the responsibilities of his status necessitate a proportionate humanite´ oblige (humanity obliges); here it is incumbent on human society to ensure the fair, tolerant and ultimately humane institution of advanced artificial intelligence and robots within mankind’s society. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "continued advances in computer science, engineering and robotics have led to a rapid development of enhanced computability offering superior artificial intelligence and robotics.\nThe prospect of sentient, rational and self-conscious artificial intelligence agents has led to the conceptual consideration of robot and artificially intelligent rights and laws\nRights in human society are counterbalanced by the need for commensurate responsibilities and duties\nthe idea of artificial intelligence and robot rights necessitates a matching level of societal responsibility and duty.\nWarfare Robot A is likely to complete his mission of achieving military victory for his country whilst also considering the welfare of any local inhabitants\nembroiled in the war (as set out by international treaties).\nRobot A’s programmer Y is keen to guarantee that Robot A does consider the welfare of the local populace during his war efforts so that he adds a specific implant into Robot A\nneural system that can override A’s programming in any case that he decides to consider against the welfare of local inhabitants during war\n. During the war, Robot A does prioritize human welfare during a battle (by helping injured civilian children) on his own accord so that programmer Y does not activate A’s special implant. Consequently, Robot A is responsible for considering the needs of local inhabitants during a robotic fought war although, according to Programmer Y’s implant, Robot A lacks freedom to do differently/otherwise\nThese have propelled the philosophical consideration of artificial intelligence and robot rights. The discernable next-step for evolution in this field necessitates attention to the moral responsibilities and duties of artificial intelligence and robots.\nSuch a position requires a commensurate adoption of responsibilities and duties for the advancement of human and artificial intelligence societies. These broad obligations require accountability within the context of prioritizing human aims and needs within the framework of a robust legal platform.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: We meet—we vest duties in AI - programmed constraints on military AI are duties—even if accountability is on humans.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nIntroduction\nThe continued advances in computer science, engineering and robotics have led to a rapid development of enhanced computability offering superior artificial intelligence and robotics. In due course these may herald the possibility of near-human, comparable-to-human and even beyond-human capability that requires an increased fidelity in appraisal of these technologies (Ashrafian et al. 2014). The prospect of sentient, rational and self-conscious artificial intelligence agents has led to the conceptual consideration of robot and artificially intelligent rights and laws that consider human societal and artificial intelligence agent relationships, as well as the relationships between artificial intelligent agents themselves (Ashrafian 2014).\nRights in human society are counterbalanced by the need for commensurate responsibilities and duties. Consequently, the idea of artificial intelligence and robot rights necessitates a matching level of societal responsibility and duty. Addressing this issue represents the discernable next-step for evolution in this field. This manuscript discusses the philosophical and practical considerations for artificial intelligence and robotic responsibilities and identifies the societal and moral considerations for these agents beyond that of rights, addressing translational concepts including the sophistication of robots and artificial intelligences.\nWhen considering the moral responsibilities of the robots in the case, some basic questions arise: (1) Should robots have helped the injured children on moral grounds? Even if this meant that the war could be delayed or even potentially lost; with possibly many more deaths from both warring sides? (2) At a broader level what is the moral responsibility of self-conscious, rational and sentient artificial intelligence?\nMoral Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence\nIn order to appraise the responsibilities of artificial intelligences and robots, there are several core philosophical positions that require consideration (Fig. 1). These include the contemplation of moral responsibility through Determinism and Libertarianism. Determinism represents that all events are pre-‘determined’ and therefore negate the concept of free will so that individual choice and therefore responsibility are disavowed. Conversely libertarianism denotes that individuals have moral responsibility derived from their innate free will in making personal decisions. Determinism can be divided into soft and hard. Soft determinism or Compatibilism represents a ‘middle road’ supporting the role of moral responsibility where decisions are made by free will within a context of determinism. Compatibilism in turn is differentiated from Incompatibilism, which consists of Libertarianism (Agent-Causal and Event-Causal) and Hard-Determinism and rejects any element of free will or choice due to the explanation that all events (and therefore individual decisions and actions) are totally pre-determined by the laws of nature. Currently, the most favored school of philosophy when considering moral responsibility is compatibilism.\nThe determinist school classically describes ‘humans as robots or automatons’ as their actions are fundamentally predetermined by natural laws. Consequently the hard determinist view of the case above where the robots assist the children could only be explained through the fact that the robots could demonstrate free will or responsibility to help the children unless they had been pre-programmed to specifically do so. Conversely the libertarian view would be that the robots were rational and sentient beings with free will, and as a result of personal moral responsibility went to the aid of the children despite knowing that through these actions they would lose their strategic position in the war. The compatibilist view would be one where each robot was constructed to achieve free will and decisionmaking capability through programmed rationality and sentience. Thus whilst they had been preset to carry out a military task; their free will and their moral responsibility led to their prioritizing the health of the injured children over their predetermined task to gain a strategic position in the war.\nOne thought experiment designed to consider hard determinism might also offer a deeper contemplation of strong artificial intelligence (exceeding human intelligence). If hard determinism was to hold true, a hypothetical ultimate supercomputer that is cognizant of all knowledge to-date can be used to predict individual human choices and future events based on the raw analysis of every fact and trend that preceded any event. If such a predicting computer (representing strong AI) could not exist, then the actuality of hard determinism would be negated.\nBoth compatibilists and libertarians offer explanations that the robots in the above case are more than the product of their construction and programming, so that they demonstrate sentiments of sympathy and empathy toward the injured children. Ultimately the question of whether these robots have a moral responsibility requires the establishment of whether the robots have a free will to carry out their own actions. A hard determinist would argue that all robotic and artificially intelligent actions are due to the laws of physics and as such the robots would not carry any responsibility. Conversely according to libertarians, the robots have a ‘soul’; so they demonstrate a free will with which to have moral responsibility, which in this case guided them to help the children. An incompatibilist view is problematical and may be evaluated by a thought experiment whereby human beings are enhanced by an implant that can control their desires so that they have no free will (Harris 2010). If the implant stimulates desires at random, then the human remains without free will, however his decisions and choices are reminiscent and generally undistinguishable from actual human actions. From the compatibilist view, the robots are governed by the laws of physics and their programming, however these can be designed and actioned in such a way that the robots can exhibit free will, which consequently results in the robots having moral responsibility. \nThe libertarian understanding of free will derives from the notion that individuals have the ability to do something differently or otherwise through the principle of alternative possibilities. Harry Frankfurt developed thought experiments (Frankfurt 1969) that counter this notion. He uses subjects that are responsible for their actions through intuition despite lacking the freedom to act differently. For our established robotic incident, the following can be an example of a Frankfurt-type case:\nWarfare Robot A is likely to complete his mission of achieving military victory for his country whilst also considering the welfare of any local inhabitants (friend or foe) embroiled in the war (as set out by international treaties). There is only one reason that he will not consider the welfare of local inhabitants; only if they represent a direct threat to his country’s victory or threat to his human or robotic country-mates. Robot A’s programmer Y is keen to guarantee that Robot A does consider the welfare of the local populace during his war efforts so that he adds a specific implant into Robot A’s neural system that can override A’s programming in any case that he decides to consider against the welfare of local inhabitants during warfare. During the war, Robot A does prioritize human welfare during a battle (by helping injured civilian children) on his own accord so that programmer Y does not activate A’s special implant. Consequently, Robot A is responsible for considering the needs of local inhabitants during a robotic fought war although, according to Programmer Y’s implant, Robot A lacks freedom to do differently/otherwise.\nFrankfurt’s case thus opposes incompatibilism and supports the compatibilist notion that whilst sentient, rational robots and artificial intelligences are the product of their constructors and programmers. As such, they maintain moral responsibility in the society (both human and artificially intelligent) within which they exist.\nBeyond the meta-physical elements of moral responsibility, there is an interpretation of responsibility through moral sentimentalism. This is consistent with a compatibilist framework, which in the case of robots suggest that their actions may have taken place as a result of a response to inherent emotions. The robots that have established a moral responsibility would have then prioritized the well being of the children over their national aims of military victory.\nThe compatibilist account offers different degrees of free will and responsibility. Harry Frankfurt suggests a distinction in the levels of freedom through a hierarchy of desires (first order, second order and so on). Within the case Robot A may have a conflict in his desires, he may have a first order desire to help injured humans and a second order desire to achieve victory through warfare. Although at a utilitarian level, winning the war may save many more lives than those of a few injured children, Robot A’s hierarchy of desires leads to an internal conflict with regard to responsibility. To a degree Robot A is not fully in control of himself (with the aim of fulfilling one single goal), so he is less free, but nonetheless resultantly prioritizes the lives of the injured children over the larger and long term goal of winning the war.\nComparison with the Moral Responsibility of Animals \nWhen considering the responsibilities and duties of sentient and rational artificial intelligence agents and robots, one direct comparison might be with another group of non-human sentient beings such as animals and pets. Conceptually they offer many similarities and can provide insights about non-human responsibilities. Peter Singer specified that ‘‘Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh’’ (Singer 1979). There are several analogous elements between animals and artificial intelligence agents and robots. Many animals are reared by humans to fulfill specific duties in human society (such as guide dogs). In many cases they are also specifically bred (with defined genotypes, phenotypes and traits) and subsequently trained for specific tasks. In a similar way robots and artificially intelligent agents are specifically designed, built and subsequently programmed for specific tasks. \nWild animals have moral codes, and many animals demonstrate a ‘social homeostasis’ through their social networks and relationships. They have been shown to demonstrate a ‘wild justice’ (Bekoff and Pierce 2009) where they express emotions, behavioral flexibility, reciprocity, empathy, trust and discernable duty. These are also characteristics that would exist in future robots and artificial intelligence agents. From a purely ethical viewpoint, the question of morality is independent to an individual’s species of origin; although at a practical level human beings have been dominant. Non-human animals species are subordinate to mankind and in a similar fashion robots and artificially intelligent agents will also be subordinate to humans. The question of animal rights has many well-established viewpoints, and there is an implicit consensus that at a practical level a utilitarian approach is applied to offer rights to animals where feasible. Nevertheless, there is a tacit recognition that animals carry a moral responsibility that requires the consideration of their moral value. \nHowever, any direct moral comparison between sentient, rational artificial intelligence agents and robots with animals may prove superficial and problematic. The source of relevant moral actions should be distinguished from the evaluation of the agent as being morally responsible for a certain behavior, as otherwise we may encounter the situation of having to legally charge or prosecute animals in a similar manner to archaic societies. This is represented in today’s legal systems, which still addresses animals as reasonable targets of human censorship although it is accepted that it would be nonsensical to praise or blame them for their behavior. Consequently the parallel of robots and animals may not be fruitful, as we do not charge animals with moral accusations. Sentient and rational artificial intelligence agents and robots would have essential psychological qualities so as to make them both morally and legally responsible.\nPractical Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence \nWhilst conceptually there are favorable arguments supporting the moral value and moral responsibility of artificial intelligence agents and robots beyond simply considering their rights (Ashrafian 2014; Ashrafian et al. 2014), the introduction and application of responsibilities and duties requires realistic guidelines and protocols. For humans several such guidelines exist, though they are not as well recognized as the more acknowledged Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations 1948). Two specific declarations for Human responsibilities include The Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities by the UNESCO supported VTMF (Valencia Third Millennium Foundation), also known as the 1998 Valencia Declaration or DHDR (VTMF and UNESCO 1998) and 1997 Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities (UDHRes) (InterAction Council 1997) (Fig. 2). The DHDR specifies that ‘‘responsibility’’, ‘‘is an obligation that is legally binding under existing international law’’ and that ‘‘duty’’ is an ‘‘ethical or moral obligation’’. Here it is proposed that as artificial intelligence agents and robots occupy human society with protection and support from humanity-based rights, then the principal message of these core human responsibilities will apply equally to the non-human artificial intelligences and robots, with the stipulated modification that human needs are to be prioritized over artificial intelligence and robot needs. The articles will together include those of: (1) Justice and Solidarity, (2) Mutual Respect and Partnership, (3) Truthfulness and Tolerance, (4) Fundamental Principles for Humanity (InterAction Council 1997), (5) Human Security and an Equitable International Order, (6) Meaningful Participation in Public Affairs, (7) Freedom of Opinion, Expression, Assembly, Association and Religion, (8) The Right to Personal and Physical Integrity, (9) Equality, (10) Rights of the Child and the Elderly, (11) Work, Quality of Life and Standard of Living, (12) Right to a Remedy, (13) Education, Arts and Culture (VTMF and UNESCO 1998) and (14) NonViolence and Respect for Life/The Right to Life and Human Security (InterAction Council 1997; VTMF and UNESCO 1998) (Fig. 2). \nMuch in the same way that there has been consideration of human-artificial intelligence laws as well as artificial intelligence-on-artificial intelligence (AIonAI) laws (Ashrafian 2014), the responsibilities for artificial intelligence technologies should also consider human-AI and AIonAI elements. Consequently Article 1 of the UDHRes can be modified to: \nEvery person or individual, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, technological origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a primary responsibility to treat all human people in a humane way, and if this is not conflicted, has an added secondary responsibility to treat all non-human artificially intelligent individuals in a humane way. \nOther elements are equally relevant to humans and artificial intelligence agents such as Article 4 ‘‘What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to other,’’ and Article 11 considering ‘‘advancement of the human race’’. Many of the principles should highlight the priority to act responsibly in favor of human life and culture over that of non-human artificial intelligence, but where possible to acknowledge the importance of these. For example human security and right to life should be ranked higher than the robotic equivalent, even for the robots and artificial intelligences themselves, however where possible the survival of both should be considered. Furthermore, whilst robots and artificial intelligences can contribute to the responsibility and support of human political rights, human freedom of expression and human culture, they themselves may not stand for political office over humans, override their freedom over humans or enforce their culture onto humans. Whilst all their socio-cultural merits should be celebrated, the fundamental partiality to favor human needs should be maintained by artificial intelligence agents and robots. \nThe determination of the status of artificial intelligence agents and robots with responsibility and supporting laws requires comparative societal governance. According to the current appreciation of artificial intelligence, most robots occupy the master-salve paradigm where no independence of action beyond direct human volition is permitted. This contrasts with future artificial intelligence abilities of self-consciousness, rationality and sentience demonstrated in the initial case where the robots could wage war through independent decisions on behalf of their warring states. The current outlook for such artificial intelligence agents still rests on existence through service and subordinacy to human society. Within this paradigm, robots and artificial intelligence agents will demonstrate free will and morality, but also require societal security and welfare constraints so that in the preliminary phases of these technological advances detailed socio-political controls for robots and artificial intelligence agents must be determined. For example there will be a restriction on robot self-recreation, the ability to carry out independent business or public office. Nevertheless robots and artificial intelligences will be supported by rights and common laws and will contribute to society. As a consequence, the question arises of how human society recognizes a non-human being that is selfconscious, sentient and rational with ability at comparable-to-human (or even beyond-human) levels? \nWithin this context, a precedent already exists. In the ancient world ‘foreign’ or ‘non-national’ individuals (who by definition had comparable human aptitude) have been accepted to have different degrees of societal status and rights as recognized by formal law, for example in the ancient Roman Empire (30BC-212AD) (Shumway 1901). Under the Ius Gentium law (Fig. 3), Roman citizens were given a full complement of rights (through Ius Civile) whilst there were several classes of free individuals, including people of Latin (from Latium), Peregrinus (Provincial people from throughout the empire) and Libertus (Freed slave) status.\nLatin rights (Ius Latinum) offered an intermediary stage to full Roman citizenship through the ability to carry out business, marry, participate in the military to some degree and have international legal recognition. Peregrinus rights however offered a lesser status, so that inter-marriage and business was not permitted, although societal contribution such as acting as auxiliary soldiers was acceptable. A comparable system could be applied to future artificial intelligence and robotics (Fig. 3). Here robots would likely occupy Peregrinus or possibly partial-Latin status, where they would not self-replicate, stand in public office or own land and business but would be protected by the law and have the ability to contribute to society through examples such as defending nations and participating in the healthcare sector. \nUltimately the application of an equivalent Roman-like system of laws for artificial intelligence agents and robots may progress just as those of the Romans themselves. In the first instance Roman lawyers were pragmatic and their law demonstrated that some slaves enjoyed significant autonomy. The ‘elite’ slaves, as in the case of the emperor’s slaves, were estate managers, bankers and merchants, holding important jobs as public servants, or entering into binding contracts, managing and making use of property for their masters’ family business. In fact some slaves were able to retain property (known as peculium) for personal management and use. The peculium was inaccessible by the owner, which could eventually be used to purchase their freedom though was technically the property of the head of the household. A similar system of a digital peculium has been envisaged for robots (Pagallo 2012) and could contribute in the broader application of Roman legal status as an exemplar for the legal status of future artificial intelligence agents and robots. Furthermore, after some time the Romans introduced the Edict of Caracalla or Antonine Constitution (Constitutio Antoniniana) in 212AD (likely to increase the number of individuals subject to taxation). Here Roman citizenship was granted to all ‘‘freeborn’’ men throughout the Empire whereas all freeborn women in the empire would receive the same rights as Roman women. Taken to its eventual conclusion, the continual advances in artificially intelligence agents and robots may herald their status of fully-fledged personalities with an accompanying level of higher legal and moral responsibilities but also a higher degree of rights. Here each type of legal personality could potentially be met by appropriate artificial intelligence agents (Chopra and White 2011). Consequently one possibility is that a legal personhood status might ensue for robots and artificial intelligence agents (Solum 1992) as result of a future ‘‘Caracalla approach.’’ \nWhilst an exact replica of ancient Roman law is not the direct solution to the practical introduction of robots and artificial intelligence agents within mankind’s communities, its parallels nevertheless offer some degree of perceptiveness regarding the introduction of such agents into human society.\nConclusion \nThe ongoing developments and innovations in artificial intelligence and robotics offer the promised capacity of computer consciousness, sentience and rationality.\nThese have propelled the philosophical consideration of artificial intelligence and robot rights. The discernable next-step for evolution in this field necessitates attention to the moral responsibilities and duties of artificial intelligence and robots. Various philosophical stances can be engaged ranging from determinism to libertarianism and lend support to a middle ground of compatibilism. Such a position requires a commensurate adoption of responsibilities and duties for the advancement of human and artificial intelligence societies. These broad obligations require accountability within the context of prioritizing human aims and needs within the framework of a robust legal platform. The broader application of noblesse oblige where a leader fulfills the responsibilities of his status necessitate a proportionate humanite´ oblige (humanity obliges); here it is incumbent on human society to ensure the fair, tolerant and ultimately humane institution of advanced artificial intelligence and robots within mankind’s society. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "computer science\nengineering\nrobotics\na\ni\nrights and laws\nRights\ncommensurate responsibilities and duties\na\ni\nrobot rights\nresponsibility\nduty\nRobot A\nmission of achieving military victory\nconsidering the welfare of any local inhabitants\ninternational treaties\nspecific implant\noverride A’s programming\ndoes prioritize human welfare\nConsequently\nresponsible\nalthough\ndo differently/otherwise\na\ni\nrobot rights\nresponsibilities\nduties\na\ni\nresponsibilities\nduties\na\ni\nThese broad obligations\naccountability within the context of prioritizing human aims\nrobust legal platform", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: We meet—we vest duties in AI - programmed constraints on military AI are duties—even if accountability is on humans.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "continued advances in computer science, engineering and robotics have led to a rapid development of enhanced computability offering superior artificial intelligence and robotics.\nThe prospect of sentient, rational and self-conscious artificial intelligence agents has led to the conceptual consideration of robot and artificially intelligent rights and laws\nRights in human society are counterbalanced by the need for commensurate responsibilities and duties\nthe idea of artificial intelligence and robot rights necessitates a matching level of societal responsibility and duty.\nWarfare Robot A is likely to complete his mission of achieving military victory for his country whilst also considering the welfare of any local inhabitants\nembroiled in the war (as set out by international treaties).\nRobot A’s programmer Y is keen to guarantee that Robot A does consider the welfare of the local populace during his war efforts so that he adds a specific implant into Robot A\nneural system that can override A’s programming in any case that he decides to consider against the welfare of local inhabitants during war\n. During the war, Robot A does prioritize human welfare during a battle (by helping injured civilian children) on his own accord so that programmer Y does not activate A’s special implant. Consequently, Robot A is responsible for considering the needs of local inhabitants during a robotic fought war although, according to Programmer Y’s implant, Robot A lacks freedom to do differently/otherwise\nThese have propelled the philosophical consideration of artificial intelligence and robot rights. The discernable next-step for evolution in this field necessitates attention to the moral responsibilities and duties of artificial intelligence and robots.\nSuch a position requires a commensurate adoption of responsibilities and duties for the advancement of human and artificial intelligence societies. These broad obligations require accountability within the context of prioritizing human aims and needs within the framework of a robust legal platform.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "a\ni\nnecessitates\nduty.\na specific implant into Robot A\ncan override\nprogramming in any case\nhe decides\nagainst the welfare of local inhabitants during war\n.\nConsequently, Robot A is responsible for considering\nlocal inhabitants\nalthough\nRobot A lacks freedom to do differently/\nduties of a\ni\nrequire accountability within the context of\nhuman aims\nwithin\na\nlegal platform.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2—No impact—The state is not immutably anti-trans---legal systems are contingent, necessary, and bends towards progress---even biases are malleable.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "As this story shows, the transgender movement has come a long way. As of 2018, the transgender rights movement in the United States has been able to secure a remarkable string of policy achievements in the few decades that the term transgender has existed (Stryker 2008). Since the beginning of the modern transgender movement in the 1980s and 1990s, transgender rights advancements have been achieved across all levels of government and in a range of policy areas. At the national level, gender identity and sexual orientation were added to the federal hate crimes law with the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009. Recent federal district and appellate court rulings have determined that the sex discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompass sex stereotyping and thus may provide protection for transgender employees. The Obama administration issued a series of executive actions to advance transgender rights. These ranged from easing gender marker changes for federal documents such as passports and Social Security records, to securing discrimination protections in a variety of government programs, to allowing transgender people to serve in the military. Although the Trump administration is rolling back some of these protections, it is un- likely that it will remove all of them. At the subnational level, twenty states specifically include gender identity in their antibullying policies. Nineteen states comprehensively bar gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Seventeen states include gender identity in their hate crimes law, and fourteen have passed more narrowly tailored protections against discrimination in schools. Many local govern- ments, from municipalities to schools districts, have adopted their own poli- cies that provide protections for transgender rights. Finally, the majority of large businesses also provide protections in their internal policies.\nAs we noted at the outset of the book, policy changes are one of the common ways that we assess the work of social movements. Indeed, the achievements of the transgender rights movement are astonishing for such a small and historically marginalized political group. In a majoritarian democracy like the United States, policy successes typically require a significant amount of resources—political access, money, and votes (e.g., Olson 1965; Schloz- man 1984; Gilens 2012). Yet, with an estimated national population of just 1.4 million people, or 0.6 percent of the population (Flores et al. 2016) that has faced widespread discrimination, poverty, and violence (Grant, Mottet, and Tanis 2011; James et al. 2016), the transgender community has nonetheless been able to find ways to secure political and policy victories against the odds. These surprising successes, themselves, constitute an intriguing puzzle. Put simply, how are they doing that?\nOf course, this rather simple question does not lend itself to an equally simple answer. Throughout the book, we explored a range of social, political, and institutional factors that have contributed to the policy successes of the transgender rights movement and, in many cases, to the limits of the successes and the challenges that the movement faces in the coming years. While there is no quick and easy answer to our research question, the analyses covered in these pages have revealed a range of important insights into the remarkable rise of transgender rights and the future challenges and opportunities for the movement.\nSummary of Findings\nBuilding a Transgender Rights Social Movement\nOur analyses of the development of the transgender rights movement identified several critical factors that contribute to recent policy successes. Importantly, the transgender rights movement developed independent or- ganizations and became accepted, somewhat begrudgingly, as part of the broader LGBT advocacy coalition. By participating in a larger coalitional movement, transgender rights advocates leveraged more financial, organiza- tional, and political resources than they could generate by themselves. They also could take advantage of the gay and lesbian advocacy community’s ties to the Democratic Party. In addition, they gained access to the policymaking process more effectively than they would have otherwise been able to do on their own. Further, gay and lesbian advocates have proven to be important ambassadors to the public and policymakers alike, increasingly normaliz- ing transgender inclusion in LGBT advocacy. In legislatures, gay or lesbian legislators have been important champions for transgender rights, provid- ing crucial representation given the paucity of transgender elected officials. Gay and lesbian activists are also sometimes excellent surrogate lobbyists for transgender rights because of legislator discomfort with trans people.\nHowever, the inclusion of the transgender community in this advocacy coalition was not always a foregone conclusion. The development of queer politics and core values built upon a shared experience of oppression due to the violation of gender norms has been critical in allowing for transgender inclusion in the more robustly organized gay rights movement. This concep- tual development was also aided by more practical developments, such as the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Likewise, the growth of queer theory in academia and its dispersion among a new generation of activists helped to inform advocacy organization practices over time and make them more transgender inclusive. The professionalization of transgender advocacy, with its necessary attention to identity politics, helped to facilitate transgender inclusion by making sure that transgender people “had a seat at the table.” That many trans people had long-standing connections in the gay or lesbian communities assisted in this process, as did shared political opponents. And increased media attention to transgender people and transgender issues has increased public familiarity with the concerns of the trans community, thus making their incorporation in LGBT advocacy easier as well.\nInclusion in the umbrella LGBT movement has certainly been impor- tant to the advancement of transgender rights, but it has not been without its own challenges. Assimilationist strategies by gay people often marginal- ized or completely excluded transgender rights. Indeed, until recently, trans- gender rights have not been at the top of the advocacy coalition’s policy pri- orities. The movement has often had to “come back” to secure rights based on gender identity that had previously been won for rights based on sexual orientation (Taylor and Lewis 2014). The achievement of marriage equality, a key policy objective for many gay rights groups over the past several years, has been a boon to transgender advocacy. It lessened competition for the limited resources held by LGBT groups, and it no longer competes in the policy space for attention. Indeed, the battle for marriage equality eclipsed nearly all other LGBT policy goals for the better part of two presidencies. With that fight over, LGBT groups that specialize in litigation have rapidly increased their attention to transgender issues in their legal advocacy. Fur- ther, gaining marriage equality provided another policy win for transgender people because it negated the importance of sex and gender in a major civil institution.\nPublic Opinion\nAnother important factor shaping both the policy successes and challenges of the transgender rights movement is public opinion. Drawing on several national surveys, we found public attitudes toward transgender people to be complex and, currently, quite mutable. Americans hold negative feelings toward transgender people as a group. They report relatively low levels of personal comfort with transgender people, and large portions of the public express moral or personal opposition to the very concept of transgender. However, at the same time majorities tend to favor discrimination protections for transgender people and believe that transgender people deserve the same rights as all Americans. The seemingly contradictory nature of pub- lic attitudes toward transgender people, on the one hand, and transgender rights, on the other, helps explain policy successes in areas that highlight human and civil rights, such as employment nondiscrimination and hate crime policies, and the limits in other areas that emphasize personal feelings of discomfort, such as bathroom accessibility.\nYet the complex nature of public opinion toward transgender people and their rights seems to be highly fluid. When given the opportunity to select an option of “neither agree nor disagree,” a substantial portion of the public chooses this option, likely indicating attitude ambivalence or nonattitudes on the topic. In other words, we find that many people are still not familiar with transgender concepts. Nor are they familiar with policy implications related to the issues raised by the transgender rights movement. This fluidity may provide the transgender rights movement with both challenges and opportunities since many people are still learning about the issues and are open to framing and persuasion efforts (Broockman and Kalla 2016). Further, the relatively low level of familiarity with transgender rights policies suggest that public opinion is likely to be positively affected by the increasing exposure to transgender people in the media and through interpersonal contact (Flores et al. 2017a; Tadlock et al. 2017).\nIndeed, we found that several factors shape individuals’ attitudes toward transgender people and transgender rights. Attitudes toward transgender people are primarily shaped by personality traits, values, and experience. Moral traditionalists and respondents with high levels of disgust sensitivity tend to have attitudes that are more negative toward transgender people. Conversely, those with egalitarian values tend to have views that are more positive. In addition, interpersonal contact with both transgender people and gays and lesbians increased positive attitudes toward transgender peo- ple. The latter is very important given the significantly larger size of the gay and lesbian communities relative to the trans community. While these factors remain significant in forming political and policy attitudes, other fac- tors also emerge. Interestingly, partisanship and ideology only seem to have significant effects on attitudes relating to public policies. Authoritarianism is also a significant factor for these political attitudes.\nPolitical Institutions and Opportunity Structure\nThe American transgender rights movement developed within a federal and democratic institutional structure with a separation of powers between branches. This provided a range of policy advocacy opportunities in different institutional venues and at different levels of government. Transgender advocates, like the advocates for other groups, have many access points and venues in which to find policy gains. They can strategically shop for, and often find, favorable policymaking venues. In legislatures, from city councils to the U.S. Congress, trans and LGBT groups have made significant strides in gaining increased policy recognition and protections. For some policies, such as antidiscrimination protections and hate crimes, the trans movement has been able to build on the earlier successes of the gay movement and pursue incremental policy changes that are less controversial. Particularly in the 2000s, the trans movement sometimes benefited by obtaining these pro- tections concurrently with gays and lesbians, occasionally as a little noticed afterthought. Activists could share information about these successes in their advocacy. Early victories provided relevant policy information that could be shared in other jurisdictions. These examples were useful in lobbying and they facilitated the diffusion of these policies.\nIn other policy areas, such as those relaxing rules about gender identification on official documents, there is no parallel set of gay rights laws. Thus, the transgender movement sometimes has been forced to go it alone. However, as witnessed during the Obama administration, there is increas- ing attention from LGBT advocates to these transgender specific measures. Even here, where policies are not incremental changes, the backlash has often been weak. Further, conservative jurisdictions that have not supported sexual-orientation-inclusive policies have sometimes provided significant policy changes, such as birth certificate amendment laws or allowing sex markers on driver’s licenses to be changed. Frequently, this is done without much fanfare.\nLike other minority civil rights movements before it, the transgender rights movement has also successfully turned to the courts as a “judicial safety net” to provide civil rights protections. These venues, often more iso- lated from electoral and partisan pressures (especially at the national level), allow transgender rights advocates to pursue policies from a legal framework that highlights civil rights and equal protection under the law, even in the context of negative public opinion and partisan opposition in many areas of the country. While most areas of litigation on transgender rights are still ongoing, there have been some notable policy achievements. Because the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) found that Title VII’s sex discrimination clause provides protection against discrimination based on sex stereotyping, several federal district and appellate courts have extended these protections to cover transgender people. A simi- lar legal argument has also held sway in some recent Title IX cases at the federal district and appellate levels, such as G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board (2016). Several cases regarding the rights of transgender prisoners have also been successfully litigated, with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment providing a legal rationale to provide gender-identity-related health care to transgender prisoners and to challenge sex-segregated facilities based on sex assigned at birth.\nThe executive branches of government have also proven to be fruitful venues for transgender rights advocacy. Bureaucratic policymaking can avoid majoritarian pressures while shaping the implementation of critical policies that affect the everyday lives of transgender people. For example, a rule passed by the State Department in 2010 eased the standards for changing gender markers on passports. Similar changes happened at the Social Security Administration, which ended the practice of sending gender no match letters to the employers of transgender people. In addition, executive leaders like presidents and governors can shape policy through unilateral action, personnel, and symbolic leadership. Our analysis revealed the ways in which significant gains were made at the national level during the Obama administration. Obama issued an executive order prohibiting gender-identity-based discrimination in federal employment in 2014, and he filled his cabinet with officials that pursued transgender rights in their departments. The administration’s ability to take these actions was enabled by court cases that provided a legal rationale for the actions, such as Smith v. City of Salem (2004) and the EEOC decision in Macy v. Holder (2012). Though gay and transgender rights were not always a top priority for his administration, by Obama’s sec- ond term it was clear that they had become a key component of his legacy building. This was a function of the pressure placed by LGBT advocates on the president, the evolution of public attitudes on LGBT issues, the lack of opportunities elsewhere, and his beliefs about equality. Beyond his policy ac- tions, Obama ultimately pushed the Democratic Party to be more inclusive through his rhetoric and symbolic leadership. In doing so, the transgender rights movement is now a recognized partner in the Democratic coalition, with its policy goals embedded in the party platform. Going forward, many aspiring Democratic candidates will find it difficult to ignore transgender issues even though they are still unlikely to make them front-and-center cam- paign issues in many parts of the country. Any reluctance to embrace trans- gender rights in Democratic circles is certainly lessened given the actions of President Trump and his administration on transgender rights. Given Trump’s low approval ratings, Democrats are incentivized to be in opposi- tion to these discriminatory actions. Similarly, we documented how North Carolina Democrats rallied around the transgender rights cause after passage of HB2 by a deeply unpopular Republican governor and Republican-led legislature in North Carolina.\nOf course, state executives have also played crucial roles in advancing transgender rights. Governors have often been at the forefront of provid- ing discrimination protections using executive orders before the legislature is willing, or where it is unwilling, to adopt statutory protections. We also found that governors have wielded their veto pens to block bills that would restrict the rights of transgender people, as when Governor Daugaard (R- SD) vetoed a bill to require students to use bathrooms that corresponded with the sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Anecdotally, Republican governors might be more willing to veto such changes when they are term limited and cannot run for reelection. Our analysis revealed that transgender-inclusive executive orders are common early in gubernato- rial terms, during divided governments, and by Democratic governors. Fur- ther, some governors, such as Jack Markell in Delaware, used their political capital to advocate for transgender-inclusive policies in their state. Another influential state official is the attorney general. In some instances, attorney generals can play a role in advancing transgender rights by declining to defend discriminatory laws, as was done by Roy Cooper in North Carolina, or by issuing favorable advisory opinions.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the transgender rights movement\nhas been able to secure a remarkable string of policy achievements\nadvancements have been achieved across all levels of government and in a range of policy areas. At\nnational level, gender identity and sexual orientation were added to\nfederal hate crimes law\nRecent\ncourt rulings\ndetermined\nsex discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act\nencompass sex stereotyping and\nprovide protection for transgender employees\nexecutive actions\nranged from easing gender marker changes for federal documents\nto securing discrimination protections\nAt\nsubnational level\nstates specifically include gender identity in\nantibullying policies\nstates comprehensively bar gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations\ninclude gender identity in their hate crimes law\npassed\nnarrow\nprotections against discrimination\nachievements of the transgender rights movement are astonishing\nIn a majoritarian democracy\npolicy successes\nrequire a significant amount of resources\nYet, with an estimated\n0.6 percent of the population\nthe transgender community has\nbeen able to find ways to secure\npolicy victories against the odds\nA\nimportant factor shaping\npolicy successes\nis public opinion. Drawing on several national surveys, we found public attitudes toward transgender people to be\nmutable\nmajorities\nfavor discrimination protections for transgender people and believe that transgender people deserve the same rights as all Americans\nattitudes\nexplain policy successes in\nemployment\nhate crime policies, and the limits\ncomplex nature of public opinion toward transgender people\nseems to be highly fluid\nfluidity\nprovide\nopportunities\nmany people are still learning\nand are open to framing and persuasion\nAttitudes\nare primarily shaped by\ntraits, values, and experience\nAmerican transgender\nmovement developed\nin a federal and democratic\nstructure with a separation of powers\nThis provided a range of policy advocacy opportunities in different institutional venues and at different levels of government\nadvocates\nhave many access points and venues\nto find policy gains. They can strategically shop for\nfavorable\nvenues. In legislatures\ntrans\ngroups have made significant strides in gaining\nprotections\nEven\nwhere policies are not incremental change\nbacklash has\nbeen weak\nconservative jurisdictions\nprovided significant policy changes\nallowing sex markers\nto be changed\ntransgender rights movement\nsuccessfully turned to the courts as\njudicial safety net\nvenues\nallow transgender rights advocates to pursue\nequal protection\neven in the context of negative public opinion\nPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins\nfound\nTitle VII’s sex discrimination clause provides protection against discrimination based on sex stereotyping, several\ncourts\nextended\nprotections to cover transgender people\ncases regarding the rights of transgender prisoners have\nbeen successfully litigated, with\nEighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\npunishment providing a legal rationale\nexecutive branches\nalso proven to be fruitful venues\npolicymaking can avoid majoritarian pressures while shaping\ncritical policies that affect the everyday\nof transgender people.\na rule passed\neased the standards for changing gender markers on passports\nadministration\nissued\nx\no\nprohibiting gender-identity-based discrimination in federal employment\ncases\nprovided a legal rationale for the actions\nSmith v. City of Salem\nand\nMacy v. Holder\nmany\ncandidates will find it difficult to ignore transgender issues\ngovernors\nwielded their veto pens to block bills that would restrict the rights of transgender people\nvetoed a bill to require students to use bathrooms that corresponded with the sex assigned at birth\nRepublican governors\nmore willing to veto such changes\ngovernors\nused\np\nc\nto advocate for transgender-inclusive policies\nattorney generals\nplay a role in advancing transgender rights by declining to defend discriminatory laws", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2—No impact—The state is not immutably anti-trans---legal systems are contingent, necessary, and bends towards progress---even biases are malleable.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "As this story shows, the transgender movement has come a long way. As of 2018, the transgender rights movement in the United States has been able to secure a remarkable string of policy achievements in the few decades that the term transgender has existed (Stryker 2008). Since the beginning of the modern transgender movement in the 1980s and 1990s, transgender rights advancements have been achieved across all levels of government and in a range of policy areas. At the national level, gender identity and sexual orientation were added to the federal hate crimes law with the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009. Recent federal district and appellate court rulings have determined that the sex discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompass sex stereotyping and thus may provide protection for transgender employees. The Obama administration issued a series of executive actions to advance transgender rights. These ranged from easing gender marker changes for federal documents such as passports and Social Security records, to securing discrimination protections in a variety of government programs, to allowing transgender people to serve in the military. Although the Trump administration is rolling back some of these protections, it is un- likely that it will remove all of them. At the subnational level, twenty states specifically include gender identity in their antibullying policies. Nineteen states comprehensively bar gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Seventeen states include gender identity in their hate crimes law, and fourteen have passed more narrowly tailored protections against discrimination in schools. Many local govern- ments, from municipalities to schools districts, have adopted their own poli- cies that provide protections for transgender rights. Finally, the majority of large businesses also provide protections in their internal policies.\nAs we noted at the outset of the book, policy changes are one of the common ways that we assess the work of social movements. Indeed, the achievements of the transgender rights movement are astonishing for such a small and historically marginalized political group. In a majoritarian democracy like the United States, policy successes typically require a significant amount of resources—political access, money, and votes (e.g., Olson 1965; Schloz- man 1984; Gilens 2012). Yet, with an estimated national population of just 1.4 million people, or 0.6 percent of the population (Flores et al. 2016) that has faced widespread discrimination, poverty, and violence (Grant, Mottet, and Tanis 2011; James et al. 2016), the transgender community has nonetheless been able to find ways to secure political and policy victories against the odds. These surprising successes, themselves, constitute an intriguing puzzle. Put simply, how are they doing that?\nOf course, this rather simple question does not lend itself to an equally simple answer. Throughout the book, we explored a range of social, political, and institutional factors that have contributed to the policy successes of the transgender rights movement and, in many cases, to the limits of the successes and the challenges that the movement faces in the coming years. While there is no quick and easy answer to our research question, the analyses covered in these pages have revealed a range of important insights into the remarkable rise of transgender rights and the future challenges and opportunities for the movement.\nSummary of Findings\nBuilding a Transgender Rights Social Movement\nOur analyses of the development of the transgender rights movement identified several critical factors that contribute to recent policy successes. Importantly, the transgender rights movement developed independent or- ganizations and became accepted, somewhat begrudgingly, as part of the broader LGBT advocacy coalition. By participating in a larger coalitional movement, transgender rights advocates leveraged more financial, organiza- tional, and political resources than they could generate by themselves. They also could take advantage of the gay and lesbian advocacy community’s ties to the Democratic Party. In addition, they gained access to the policymaking process more effectively than they would have otherwise been able to do on their own. Further, gay and lesbian advocates have proven to be important ambassadors to the public and policymakers alike, increasingly normaliz- ing transgender inclusion in LGBT advocacy. In legislatures, gay or lesbian legislators have been important champions for transgender rights, provid- ing crucial representation given the paucity of transgender elected officials. Gay and lesbian activists are also sometimes excellent surrogate lobbyists for transgender rights because of legislator discomfort with trans people.\nHowever, the inclusion of the transgender community in this advocacy coalition was not always a foregone conclusion. The development of queer politics and core values built upon a shared experience of oppression due to the violation of gender norms has been critical in allowing for transgender inclusion in the more robustly organized gay rights movement. This concep- tual development was also aided by more practical developments, such as the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Likewise, the growth of queer theory in academia and its dispersion among a new generation of activists helped to inform advocacy organization practices over time and make them more transgender inclusive. The professionalization of transgender advocacy, with its necessary attention to identity politics, helped to facilitate transgender inclusion by making sure that transgender people “had a seat at the table.” That many trans people had long-standing connections in the gay or lesbian communities assisted in this process, as did shared political opponents. And increased media attention to transgender people and transgender issues has increased public familiarity with the concerns of the trans community, thus making their incorporation in LGBT advocacy easier as well.\nInclusion in the umbrella LGBT movement has certainly been impor- tant to the advancement of transgender rights, but it has not been without its own challenges. Assimilationist strategies by gay people often marginal- ized or completely excluded transgender rights. Indeed, until recently, trans- gender rights have not been at the top of the advocacy coalition’s policy pri- orities. The movement has often had to “come back” to secure rights based on gender identity that had previously been won for rights based on sexual orientation (Taylor and Lewis 2014). The achievement of marriage equality, a key policy objective for many gay rights groups over the past several years, has been a boon to transgender advocacy. It lessened competition for the limited resources held by LGBT groups, and it no longer competes in the policy space for attention. Indeed, the battle for marriage equality eclipsed nearly all other LGBT policy goals for the better part of two presidencies. With that fight over, LGBT groups that specialize in litigation have rapidly increased their attention to transgender issues in their legal advocacy. Fur- ther, gaining marriage equality provided another policy win for transgender people because it negated the importance of sex and gender in a major civil institution.\nPublic Opinion\nAnother important factor shaping both the policy successes and challenges of the transgender rights movement is public opinion. Drawing on several national surveys, we found public attitudes toward transgender people to be complex and, currently, quite mutable. Americans hold negative feelings toward transgender people as a group. They report relatively low levels of personal comfort with transgender people, and large portions of the public express moral or personal opposition to the very concept of transgender. However, at the same time majorities tend to favor discrimination protections for transgender people and believe that transgender people deserve the same rights as all Americans. The seemingly contradictory nature of pub- lic attitudes toward transgender people, on the one hand, and transgender rights, on the other, helps explain policy successes in areas that highlight human and civil rights, such as employment nondiscrimination and hate crime policies, and the limits in other areas that emphasize personal feelings of discomfort, such as bathroom accessibility.\nYet the complex nature of public opinion toward transgender people and their rights seems to be highly fluid. When given the opportunity to select an option of “neither agree nor disagree,” a substantial portion of the public chooses this option, likely indicating attitude ambivalence or nonattitudes on the topic. In other words, we find that many people are still not familiar with transgender concepts. Nor are they familiar with policy implications related to the issues raised by the transgender rights movement. This fluidity may provide the transgender rights movement with both challenges and opportunities since many people are still learning about the issues and are open to framing and persuasion efforts (Broockman and Kalla 2016). Further, the relatively low level of familiarity with transgender rights policies suggest that public opinion is likely to be positively affected by the increasing exposure to transgender people in the media and through interpersonal contact (Flores et al. 2017a; Tadlock et al. 2017).\nIndeed, we found that several factors shape individuals’ attitudes toward transgender people and transgender rights. Attitudes toward transgender people are primarily shaped by personality traits, values, and experience. Moral traditionalists and respondents with high levels of disgust sensitivity tend to have attitudes that are more negative toward transgender people. Conversely, those with egalitarian values tend to have views that are more positive. In addition, interpersonal contact with both transgender people and gays and lesbians increased positive attitudes toward transgender peo- ple. The latter is very important given the significantly larger size of the gay and lesbian communities relative to the trans community. While these factors remain significant in forming political and policy attitudes, other fac- tors also emerge. Interestingly, partisanship and ideology only seem to have significant effects on attitudes relating to public policies. Authoritarianism is also a significant factor for these political attitudes.\nPolitical Institutions and Opportunity Structure\nThe American transgender rights movement developed within a federal and democratic institutional structure with a separation of powers between branches. This provided a range of policy advocacy opportunities in different institutional venues and at different levels of government. Transgender advocates, like the advocates for other groups, have many access points and venues in which to find policy gains. They can strategically shop for, and often find, favorable policymaking venues. In legislatures, from city councils to the U.S. Congress, trans and LGBT groups have made significant strides in gaining increased policy recognition and protections. For some policies, such as antidiscrimination protections and hate crimes, the trans movement has been able to build on the earlier successes of the gay movement and pursue incremental policy changes that are less controversial. Particularly in the 2000s, the trans movement sometimes benefited by obtaining these pro- tections concurrently with gays and lesbians, occasionally as a little noticed afterthought. Activists could share information about these successes in their advocacy. Early victories provided relevant policy information that could be shared in other jurisdictions. These examples were useful in lobbying and they facilitated the diffusion of these policies.\nIn other policy areas, such as those relaxing rules about gender identification on official documents, there is no parallel set of gay rights laws. Thus, the transgender movement sometimes has been forced to go it alone. However, as witnessed during the Obama administration, there is increas- ing attention from LGBT advocates to these transgender specific measures. Even here, where policies are not incremental changes, the backlash has often been weak. Further, conservative jurisdictions that have not supported sexual-orientation-inclusive policies have sometimes provided significant policy changes, such as birth certificate amendment laws or allowing sex markers on driver’s licenses to be changed. Frequently, this is done without much fanfare.\nLike other minority civil rights movements before it, the transgender rights movement has also successfully turned to the courts as a “judicial safety net” to provide civil rights protections. These venues, often more iso- lated from electoral and partisan pressures (especially at the national level), allow transgender rights advocates to pursue policies from a legal framework that highlights civil rights and equal protection under the law, even in the context of negative public opinion and partisan opposition in many areas of the country. While most areas of litigation on transgender rights are still ongoing, there have been some notable policy achievements. Because the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) found that Title VII’s sex discrimination clause provides protection against discrimination based on sex stereotyping, several federal district and appellate courts have extended these protections to cover transgender people. A simi- lar legal argument has also held sway in some recent Title IX cases at the federal district and appellate levels, such as G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board (2016). Several cases regarding the rights of transgender prisoners have also been successfully litigated, with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment providing a legal rationale to provide gender-identity-related health care to transgender prisoners and to challenge sex-segregated facilities based on sex assigned at birth.\nThe executive branches of government have also proven to be fruitful venues for transgender rights advocacy. Bureaucratic policymaking can avoid majoritarian pressures while shaping the implementation of critical policies that affect the everyday lives of transgender people. For example, a rule passed by the State Department in 2010 eased the standards for changing gender markers on passports. Similar changes happened at the Social Security Administration, which ended the practice of sending gender no match letters to the employers of transgender people. In addition, executive leaders like presidents and governors can shape policy through unilateral action, personnel, and symbolic leadership. Our analysis revealed the ways in which significant gains were made at the national level during the Obama administration. Obama issued an executive order prohibiting gender-identity-based discrimination in federal employment in 2014, and he filled his cabinet with officials that pursued transgender rights in their departments. The administration’s ability to take these actions was enabled by court cases that provided a legal rationale for the actions, such as Smith v. City of Salem (2004) and the EEOC decision in Macy v. Holder (2012). Though gay and transgender rights were not always a top priority for his administration, by Obama’s sec- ond term it was clear that they had become a key component of his legacy building. This was a function of the pressure placed by LGBT advocates on the president, the evolution of public attitudes on LGBT issues, the lack of opportunities elsewhere, and his beliefs about equality. Beyond his policy ac- tions, Obama ultimately pushed the Democratic Party to be more inclusive through his rhetoric and symbolic leadership. In doing so, the transgender rights movement is now a recognized partner in the Democratic coalition, with its policy goals embedded in the party platform. Going forward, many aspiring Democratic candidates will find it difficult to ignore transgender issues even though they are still unlikely to make them front-and-center cam- paign issues in many parts of the country. Any reluctance to embrace trans- gender rights in Democratic circles is certainly lessened given the actions of President Trump and his administration on transgender rights. Given Trump’s low approval ratings, Democrats are incentivized to be in opposi- tion to these discriminatory actions. Similarly, we documented how North Carolina Democrats rallied around the transgender rights cause after passage of HB2 by a deeply unpopular Republican governor and Republican-led legislature in North Carolina.\nOf course, state executives have also played crucial roles in advancing transgender rights. Governors have often been at the forefront of provid- ing discrimination protections using executive orders before the legislature is willing, or where it is unwilling, to adopt statutory protections. We also found that governors have wielded their veto pens to block bills that would restrict the rights of transgender people, as when Governor Daugaard (R- SD) vetoed a bill to require students to use bathrooms that corresponded with the sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Anecdotally, Republican governors might be more willing to veto such changes when they are term limited and cannot run for reelection. Our analysis revealed that transgender-inclusive executive orders are common early in gubernato- rial terms, during divided governments, and by Democratic governors. Fur- ther, some governors, such as Jack Markell in Delaware, used their political capital to advocate for transgender-inclusive policies in their state. Another influential state official is the attorney general. In some instances, attorney generals can play a role in advancing transgender rights by declining to defend discriminatory laws, as was done by Roy Cooper in North Carolina, or by issuing favorable advisory opinions.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "trans\nremarkable string\npolicy achievements\nall levels\nrange\nnational\nadded\nhate crimes\nRecent\nprotections\nC\nR\nA\nencompass\nprotect\ntrans\neasing\ndocuments\ndiscrimination protections\nsubnational\nspecifically\ngender identity\nantibullying\ncomprehensively bar\nemployment\nhousing\naccommodations\ngender identity\nhate crimes\nnarrow\ndiscrimination\nachievements\ntrans\nrights\nastonishing\nmajoritarian democracy\nsignificant\nYet\n0.6 percent\nsecure\npolicy victories\nodds\nA\nshaping\npolicy successes\npublic opinion\nseveral\ntrans\nmutable\nmajorities\ndiscrimination protections\ntrans\ntrans\nsame rights\nexplain\nemployment\nhate crime\nlimits\ncomplex\ntrans\nhighly fluid\nfluidity\nopportunities\nlearning\npersuasion\nAttitudes\ntraits\nvalues\nexperience\nin\nfederal\ndemocratic\ns\no\np\nadvocacy opportunities\nvenues\nlevels\naccess points\npolicy gains\nstrategically shop\nfavorable\nlegislatures\nsignificant\nEven\nnot incremental\nweak\nconservative\nsignificant\nsex markers\ntrans\nsuccessfully\njudicial safety net\nallow\nequal protection\neven\nnegative\nPrice\nprotect\nsex stereotyping\nseveral\nextended\ntrans\nrights\nsuccessfully\nEighth Amendment\ncruel\nlegal rationale\nexecutive\nfruitful\npolicymaking\nmajoritarian\ncritical policies\neveryday\ntrans\nchanging\npassports\nx\no\nprohibiting\ndiscrimination\ncases\nlegal rationale\nSmith\nMacy\nmany\nignore\nwielded\nveto pens\nrestrict\ntrans\nvetoe\nbathrooms\nRep\nmore willing\nchanges\np\nc\npolicies\na\ng\ns\ntrans\ndiscriminatory", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2—No impact—The state is not immutably anti-trans---legal systems are contingent, necessary, and bends towards progress---even biases are malleable.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the transgender rights movement\nhas been able to secure a remarkable string of policy achievements\nadvancements have been achieved across all levels of government and in a range of policy areas. At\nnational level, gender identity and sexual orientation were added to\nfederal hate crimes law\nRecent\ncourt rulings\ndetermined\nsex discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act\nencompass sex stereotyping and\nprovide protection for transgender employees\nexecutive actions\nranged from easing gender marker changes for federal documents\nto securing discrimination protections\nAt\nsubnational level\nstates specifically include gender identity in\nantibullying policies\nstates comprehensively bar gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations\ninclude gender identity in their hate crimes law\npassed\nnarrow\nprotections against discrimination\nachievements of the transgender rights movement are astonishing\nIn a majoritarian democracy\npolicy successes\nrequire a significant amount of resources\nYet, with an estimated\n0.6 percent of the population\nthe transgender community has\nbeen able to find ways to secure\npolicy victories against the odds\nA\nimportant factor shaping\npolicy successes\nis public opinion. Drawing on several national surveys, we found public attitudes toward transgender people to be\nmutable\nmajorities\nfavor discrimination protections for transgender people and believe that transgender people deserve the same rights as all Americans\nattitudes\nexplain policy successes in\nemployment\nhate crime policies, and the limits\ncomplex nature of public opinion toward transgender people\nseems to be highly fluid\nfluidity\nprovide\nopportunities\nmany people are still learning\nand are open to framing and persuasion\nAttitudes\nare primarily shaped by\ntraits, values, and experience\nAmerican transgender\nmovement developed\nin a federal and democratic\nstructure with a separation of powers\nThis provided a range of policy advocacy opportunities in different institutional venues and at different levels of government\nadvocates\nhave many access points and venues\nto find policy gains. They can strategically shop for\nfavorable\nvenues. In legislatures\ntrans\ngroups have made significant strides in gaining\nprotections\nEven\nwhere policies are not incremental change\nbacklash has\nbeen weak\nconservative jurisdictions\nprovided significant policy changes\nallowing sex markers\nto be changed\ntransgender rights movement\nsuccessfully turned to the courts as\njudicial safety net\nvenues\nallow transgender rights advocates to pursue\nequal protection\neven in the context of negative public opinion\nPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins\nfound\nTitle VII’s sex discrimination clause provides protection against discrimination based on sex stereotyping, several\ncourts\nextended\nprotections to cover transgender people\ncases regarding the rights of transgender prisoners have\nbeen successfully litigated, with\nEighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel\npunishment providing a legal rationale\nexecutive branches\nalso proven to be fruitful venues\npolicymaking can avoid majoritarian pressures while shaping\ncritical policies that affect the everyday\nof transgender people.\na rule passed\neased the standards for changing gender markers on passports\nadministration\nissued\nx\no\nprohibiting gender-identity-based discrimination in federal employment\ncases\nprovided a legal rationale for the actions\nSmith v. City of Salem\nand\nMacy v. Holder\nmany\ncandidates will find it difficult to ignore transgender issues\ngovernors\nwielded their veto pens to block bills that would restrict the rights of transgender people\nvetoed a bill to require students to use bathrooms that corresponded with the sex assigned at birth\nRepublican governors\nmore willing to veto such changes\ngovernors\nused\np\nc\nto advocate for transgender-inclusive policies\nattorney generals\nplay a role in advancing transgender rights by declining to defend discriminatory laws", "role": "user" }, { "content": "trans\nrights\nsecure\nstring of\nachievements\nacross all levels of government\ngender identity\nadded to\nhate crimes law\ncourt rulings\ndiscrimination protections under\nC\nR\nA\nprovide protect\ntrans\nemployees\ninclude\nidentity in\nantibullying\nbar\ndiscrimination in\nhousing, and\naccommodations\nachievements\nare astonishing\nsecure\nvictories against\nodds\nopinion\ntoward trans\npeople\nmutable\nmajorities\nfavor\nprotections\nbelieve\ntrans\npeople deserve\nsame rights\nopinion\nseems\nfluid\nprovide\nopportunities\npeople are\nopen to\npersuasion\nfederal\nstructure\nprovided a range of\nopportunities in different\nvenues\nThey can\nshop for\nfavorable\nvenues\nbacklash\nweak\nconservative\njurisdictions\nt\nprovided significant\nchanges\nturned\ncourts as\nsafety net\nPrice\nfound\nTitle VII\nprotect\nstereotyping\nEighth Amendment\nprohibition against cruel\npunishment\nx\no\nprohibiting\ndiscrimination\ngovernors\nwielded\nveto pens to block bills that\nrestrict\nrights of trans\npeople\nused\np\nc\nto advocate for trans\ninclusive policies", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cooperation is a matter of degrees – even if the aff only has a small impact on comity, it has a vast impact on cooperation", "role": "system" }, { "content": "There has been something of a time lag in the international community’s acceptance of mechanisms by which persons injured by cartels may be compensated for the damages suffered. The landscape, however, is changing rapidly on that front. Today, there is an ever-increasing ability for price-fixing victims to obtain damages. The European Union recently adopted a Directive that “makes it a lot easier for victims of antitrust violation to claim compensation.”10 And, damage actions can already be brought in the Member States.\nA few examples of cartel members who have faced damage demands or civil proceedings in various EU Member States are gas-insulated switchgears, vitamins, rubber chemicals, elevators and escalators, cement, hydrogen peroxide, and rail.11 So far, England, Germany, and the Netherlands have emerged as litigation hotspots. According to one report “Interestingly enough, a vying for the label of the best competition litigation forum for claimants in Europe seems to be evolving.”12\nAs new cartel enforcers enter the picture, they are including victim redress as an enforcement goal. In India, for example, damages can be awarded to victims, but the system is completely different than the U.S. class-action system. Victims can make claims to the Competition Appellate Tribunal after the Competition Commission of India has successfully brought an action.13 And China took an interesting tack against the LCD cartel members. Besides imposing fines, the six defendants were required to refund the overcharged amount directly to the Chinese TV makers. China also required the defendants to offer extended warranties to consumers of the price-fixed products.14\nCollective redress or damage actions are proliferating, as cartel enforcement has, around the globe. To be sure, the regimes may be different; the U.S. class action system is not seen as a model to emulate. Some foreign regimes may be better than the U.S. system, some worse, and— in some jurisdictions—damage claims may still not be allowed at all. But as with cartel enforcement, allowing each jurisdiction to create its own system of enforcement in cooperation, not competition, may be the best long-term way to further increase worldwide cartel deterrence.\nThe Motorola Mobility opinion cited the Supreme Court warning that rampart extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act “creates a serious risk of interference with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs.”15 The Seventh Circuit went on to state, “The position for which Motorola contends would if adopted increase the global reach of the Sherman Act, creating friction with many foreign countries and ‘resent[ment at] the apparent effort of the United States to act as the world’s competition police officer.”16\nDo I think that had the sovereignty interests of foreign governments (as expressed in their amicus briefs) been ignored in Motorola Mobility, these and other governments would have stopped cooperating in international cartel investigations? Would we return to the days of “blocking” statutes and “claw back” provisions? Probably not. But cooperation is a matter of degree and requires mutual trust and respect between partners. And it is required in a number of areas. The timing of dawn raids is currently a subject of effective international cooperation. Confidentiality of information is another key area of cooperation that have been essential to the proliferation of leniency programs. Even small areas of increased friction in these or other areas could help kill the golden goose—the governmental enforcement actions that precede civil damage cases. Optimal continued cooperation sometimes means respecting partners’ views and processes, even though you’re sure you know best.\nIn short, deterrence against international cartels has increased substantially and will continue to do so as long as enforcement agencies cooperate. The recent cooperation of China with nations coordinating dawn raids in the relatively new international capacitor investigation is a deterrent development probably not yet fully appreciated. And the ability of price-fixing victims to assert damage claims is also on the rise.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "there is an ever-increasing ability for price-fixing victims to obtain damages\nAs new cartel enforcers enter the picture, they are including victim redress as an enforcement goal\nCollective redress or damage actions are proliferating, as cartel enforcement has, around the globe\nallowing each jurisdiction to create its own system of enforcement in cooperation, not competition, may be the best long-term way to further increase worldwide cartel deterrence.\ncooperation is a matter of degree and requires mutual trust and respect between partners.\nThe timing of dawn raids is currently a subject of effective international cooperation\nConfidentiality of information is another key area of cooperation that have been essential to the proliferation of leniency programs\nEven small areas of increased friction in these or other areas could help kill the golden goose\nthe governmental enforcement actions that precede civil damage cases. Optimal continued cooperation sometimes means respecting partners’ views and processes\ndeterrence against international cartels has increased substantially and will continue to do so as long as enforcement agencies cooperate\nthe ability of price-fixing victims to assert damage claims is also on the rise.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Cooperation is a matter of degrees – even if the aff only has a small impact on comity, it has a vast impact on cooperation", "role": "system" }, { "content": "there is an ever-increasing ability for price-fixing victims to obtain damages\nAs new cartel enforcers enter the picture, they are including victim redress as an enforcement goal\nCollective redress or damage actions are proliferating, as cartel enforcement has, around the globe\nallowing each jurisdiction to create its own system of enforcement in cooperation, not competition, may be the best long-term way to further increase worldwide cartel deterrence.\ncooperation is a matter of degree and requires mutual trust and respect between partners.\nThe timing of dawn raids is currently a subject of effective international cooperation\nConfidentiality of information is another key area of cooperation that have been essential to the proliferation of leniency programs\nEven small areas of increased friction in these or other areas could help kill the golden goose\nthe governmental enforcement actions that precede civil damage cases. Optimal continued cooperation sometimes means respecting partners’ views and processes\ndeterrence against international cartels has increased substantially and will continue to do so as long as enforcement agencies cooperate\nthe ability of price-fixing victims to assert damage claims is also on the rise.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "ever-increasing ability\nprice-fixing victims\nobtain damages\nnew cartel enforcers\nincluding victim redress\nenforcement goa\nCollective redress\ndamage actions\nproliferating\nallowing each jurisdiction\ncreate\nown system of enforcement\ncooperation\nnot competition\nbest long-term way\nincrease\ndeterrence\ncooperation\nmatter of degree\nmutual trust\nrespect\ntiming of dawn raids\neffective international cooperation\nConfidentiality\ninformation\nkey area of cooperation\nproliferation\nleniency programs\nEven small areas\nincreased friction\nhelp kill the golden goose\ngovernmental enforcement actions\nOptimal\ncooperation\nrespecting partners’ views\ndeterrence\nincreased substantially\ncontinue to do\nenforcement agencies cooperate\nability\nprice-fixing victims\nassert damage claims\non the rise.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Cooperation is a matter of degrees – even if the aff only has a small impact on comity, it has a vast impact on cooperation\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "There has been something of a time lag in the international community’s acceptance of mechanisms by which persons injured by cartels may be compensated for the damages suffered. The landscape, however, is changing rapidly on that front. Today, there is an ever-increasing ability for price-fixing victims to obtain damages. The European Union recently adopted a Directive that “makes it a lot easier for victims of antitrust violation to claim compensation.”10 And, damage actions can already be brought in the Member States.\nA few examples of cartel members who have faced damage demands or civil proceedings in various EU Member States are gas-insulated switchgears, vitamins, rubber chemicals, elevators and escalators, cement, hydrogen peroxide, and rail.11 So far, England, Germany, and the Netherlands have emerged as litigation hotspots. According to one report “Interestingly enough, a vying for the label of the best competition litigation forum for claimants in Europe seems to be evolving.”12\nAs new cartel enforcers enter the picture, they are including victim redress as an enforcement goal. In India, for example, damages can be awarded to victims, but the system is completely different than the U.S. class-action system. Victims can make claims to the Competition Appellate Tribunal after the Competition Commission of India has successfully brought an action.13 And China took an interesting tack against the LCD cartel members. Besides imposing fines, the six defendants were required to refund the overcharged amount directly to the Chinese TV makers. China also required the defendants to offer extended warranties to consumers of the price-fixed products.14\nCollective redress or damage actions are proliferating, as cartel enforcement has, around the globe. To be sure, the regimes may be different; the U.S. class action system is not seen as a model to emulate. Some foreign regimes may be better than the U.S. system, some worse, and— in some jurisdictions—damage claims may still not be allowed at all. But as with cartel enforcement, allowing each jurisdiction to create its own system of enforcement in cooperation, not competition, may be the best long-term way to further increase worldwide cartel deterrence.\nThe Motorola Mobility opinion cited the Supreme Court warning that rampart extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act “creates a serious risk of interference with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs.”15 The Seventh Circuit went on to state, “The position for which Motorola contends would if adopted increase the global reach of the Sherman Act, creating friction with many foreign countries and ‘resent[ment at] the apparent effort of the United States to act as the world’s competition police officer.”16\nDo I think that had the sovereignty interests of foreign governments (as expressed in their amicus briefs) been ignored in Motorola Mobility, these and other governments would have stopped cooperating in international cartel investigations? Would we return to the days of “blocking” statutes and “claw back” provisions? Probably not. But cooperation is a matter of degree and requires mutual trust and respect between partners. And it is required in a number of areas. The timing of dawn raids is currently a subject of effective international cooperation. Confidentiality of information is another key area of cooperation that have been essential to the proliferation of leniency programs. Even small areas of increased friction in these or other areas could help kill the golden goose—the governmental enforcement actions that precede civil damage cases. Optimal continued cooperation sometimes means respecting partners’ views and processes, even though you’re sure you know best.\nIn short, deterrence against international cartels has increased substantially and will continue to do so as long as enforcement agencies cooperate. The recent cooperation of China with nations coordinating dawn raids in the relatively new international capacitor investigation is a deterrent development probably not yet fully appreciated. And the ability of price-fixing victims to assert damage claims is also on the rise.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "ever-increasing ability for price-fixing victims to obtain damages\nnew\nenforcers\nincluding victim redress as a\ngoal\ncreate its own system of enforcement\ncooperation\nrequires mutual trust\nEven small areas of increased friction\nkill the golden goose", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: ‘Should’", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The specifications in the drawings for the mini-piles stated that the capacity for the mini-piles was \"to be\" 6,000 or 8,000 pounds and that the length of the mini-piles was \"to be\" adequate to get into undisturbed soil to a depth adequate for obtaining the required capacity. The specifications in the project manual stated that the mini-piles \"should\" have a capacity of 4 tons and 3 tons, that the mini-piles \"should\" be driven to minimum depth of 25 feet, and that a grout bulb \"should\" be formed at the base of a mini-pile. Kenneth Winters, an expert in structural engineering, and Richard Anderson, an expert in geotechnical engineering, agreed with Steve Maranowski, plaintiff's president, that the specifications in the project manual, because those specifications used the word \"should,\" were permissive and suggestions of what plaintiff could do to achieve the required capacity. However, the trial court, when it instructed the jury on how to interpret the contract, instructed the jury that it was to interpret the words of the contract by giving them their ordinary and common meaning. An ordinary and common meaning of the word \"should\" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation. [*9] See People v Fosnaugh, 248 Mich App 444, 455; 639 NW2d 587 (2001) (stating that \"the word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect\"); Merriam-Webster's College Dictionary (11th ed) (defining \"should,\" in pertinent part, as \"used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency\"). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, reasonable jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions on whether the specifications in the project manual were mandatory and, because Maranowski admitted that plaintiff did not use grout bulbs and did not drive all the mini-piles at least 25 feet into the ground, whether plaintiff breached the contract. Morinelli, 242 Mich App at 260-261.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "An ordinary and common meaning of the word \"should\" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation\nSee People v Fosnaugh\nstating that \"the word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect\"\nWebster's\ndefining \"should,\" in pertinent part, as \"used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency\"", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2---LINK UNQUENESS. Every NEG disad would be thumped. We have always committed to “long-term” disarmament.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In 1946, just one year after the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United Nations set the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. A step towards that goal came in 1968, with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed by most countries around the world. But though nominally committed to disarmament under the NPT, none of the Treaty's five recognised nuclear-weapon states (the US, USSR, China, UK and France) have made serious efforts to get rid of their arsenals, and indeed have invested heavily in upgrading them. This paradox is apparent in the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review, which reaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons', at the same time as arguing that such weapons have become more necessary than ever in an 'evolving and uncertain international security environment'. According to the review, nuclear arms play a key role in deterring both nuclear and conventional attacks on the US and its allies, and have even made the world a much safer place, with a dramatic fall in the number of wartime casualties since the beginning of the nuclear era. On the Russian side, the 2020 Nuclear Deterrence Policy also emphasises the deterrent function of nuclear weapons. The US and Russian documents suggest that neither country sees total nuclear disarmament as a realistic or even desirable goal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the U\nN\nset the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons\nBut though nominally committed to disarmament under the NPT, none of the Treaty's five recognised nuclear-weapon states\nhave made serious efforts to get rid of their arsenals, and indeed have invested heavily in upgrading them. This paradox is apparent in the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review, which reaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons', at the same time as arguing that such weapons have become more necessary than ever\nThe US and Russian documents suggest that neither country sees total nuclear disarmament as a realistic or even desirable goal", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2---LINK UNQUENESS. Every NEG disad would be thumped. We have always committed to “long-term” disarmament.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In 1946, just one year after the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United Nations set the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. A step towards that goal came in 1968, with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed by most countries around the world. But though nominally committed to disarmament under the NPT, none of the Treaty's five recognised nuclear-weapon states (the US, USSR, China, UK and France) have made serious efforts to get rid of their arsenals, and indeed have invested heavily in upgrading them. This paradox is apparent in the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review, which reaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons', at the same time as arguing that such weapons have become more necessary than ever in an 'evolving and uncertain international security environment'. According to the review, nuclear arms play a key role in deterring both nuclear and conventional attacks on the US and its allies, and have even made the world a much safer place, with a dramatic fall in the number of wartime casualties since the beginning of the nuclear era. On the Russian side, the 2020 Nuclear Deterrence Policy also emphasises the deterrent function of nuclear weapons. The US and Russian documents suggest that neither country sees total nuclear disarmament as a realistic or even desirable goal.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "U\nN\ngoal\neliminating\nnominally committed to disarmament under the NPT\nnone\nn\nw\ns\nparadox\n2018\nN\nP\nR\nreaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuc\ns\nat the same time", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2---LINK UNQUENESS. Every NEG disad would be thumped. We have always committed to “long-term” disarmament.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the U\nN\nset the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons\nBut though nominally committed to disarmament under the NPT, none of the Treaty's five recognised nuclear-weapon states\nhave made serious efforts to get rid of their arsenals, and indeed have invested heavily in upgrading them. This paradox is apparent in the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review, which reaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons', at the same time as arguing that such weapons have become more necessary than ever\nThe US and Russian documents suggest that neither country sees total nuclear disarmament as a realistic or even desirable goal", "role": "user" }, { "content": "though nominally committed to disarm\nunder the NPT\nparadox is apparent in the 2018\nN\nP\nR\nwhich reaffirms 'the long-term goal of eliminating nuc\ns\nat the same time", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Community Health Centers will be forced to close", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.\nWell, it is clear from what I have heard so far that there is strong, bipartisan support for the community health centers. It is one of the real successes of our Federal health policy.\nBut I want to make one point that Mr. Stupak indicated. We will be doing a real disservice to the community health centers if we make some of the cuts in Medicaid that are being proposed. It may not be the $15 billion or $20 billion, although we still don't know if somebody might just come up with something more than $10 billion, but $10 billion is not a small amount of money. It is the Medicaid program that is the lifeblood of these centers. If we had not established the federally Qualified Health Centers Program in Medicaid in 1989 guaranteeing community health centers that they would be covered providers in the Medicaid program and reimbursed at a fair level that recognized their costs, many centers just would not be viable. And it is hard to praise those centers when they are not around anymore. It is a crucial source of payment, and they are not going to be around anymore if we make some of these cuts in Medicaid.\nIf we cut the Medicaid program and we take away the guarantee of coverage for eligible people, we will be damaging the community health center program just as directly as if we slashed its funding. If we accede to State calls for flexibility and take away the payment and coverage guarantees we have given to FQHCs, then it is the viability of the community health centers that will be directly threatened.\nIt is easy to voice support for these centers but miss the crucial link to a robust Medicaid program. Certainly the administration, in my view, has been hypocritical in touting their support for community health centers while they work for constant changes in Medicaid, which would damage these institutions beyond repair.\nIn addition to Medicaid, community health centers see the uninsured. Well, we will have many more uninsured if there is not a Medicaid eligibility for them to get that coverage. We will have more uninsured, less payment, and the community health centers, and other providers, will not be able to absorb those costs.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "community health centers\nIt is one of the real successes of our Federal health policy\nBut\nWe will be doing a real disservice to the community health centers if we make\ncuts in Medicaid that are being proposed\nIt is the Medicaid program that is the lifeblood of these centers\nmany centers just would not be viable\nIt is a crucial source of payment, and they are not going to be around anymore if we make some of these cuts in Medicaid\nIf we cut the Medicaid program and we take away the guarantee of coverage for eligible people, we will be damaging the community health center program just as directly as if we slashed its funding\nIf we accede to State calls for flexibility and take away the payment and coverage guarantees we have given to FQHCs, then it is the viability of the community health centers that will be directly threatened\nchanges in Medicaid\nwould damage these institutions beyond repair\nIn addition to Medicaid, community health centers see the uninsured. Well, we will have many more uninsured if there is not a Medicaid eligibility for them to get that coverage. We will have more uninsured, less payment, and the community health centers, and other providers, will not be able to absorb those costs", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Community Health Centers will be forced to close", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.\nWell, it is clear from what I have heard so far that there is strong, bipartisan support for the community health centers. It is one of the real successes of our Federal health policy.\nBut I want to make one point that Mr. Stupak indicated. We will be doing a real disservice to the community health centers if we make some of the cuts in Medicaid that are being proposed. It may not be the $15 billion or $20 billion, although we still don't know if somebody might just come up with something more than $10 billion, but $10 billion is not a small amount of money. It is the Medicaid program that is the lifeblood of these centers. If we had not established the federally Qualified Health Centers Program in Medicaid in 1989 guaranteeing community health centers that they would be covered providers in the Medicaid program and reimbursed at a fair level that recognized their costs, many centers just would not be viable. And it is hard to praise those centers when they are not around anymore. It is a crucial source of payment, and they are not going to be around anymore if we make some of these cuts in Medicaid.\nIf we cut the Medicaid program and we take away the guarantee of coverage for eligible people, we will be damaging the community health center program just as directly as if we slashed its funding. If we accede to State calls for flexibility and take away the payment and coverage guarantees we have given to FQHCs, then it is the viability of the community health centers that will be directly threatened.\nIt is easy to voice support for these centers but miss the crucial link to a robust Medicaid program. Certainly the administration, in my view, has been hypocritical in touting their support for community health centers while they work for constant changes in Medicaid, which would damage these institutions beyond repair.\nIn addition to Medicaid, community health centers see the uninsured. Well, we will have many more uninsured if there is not a Medicaid eligibility for them to get that coverage. We will have more uninsured, less payment, and the community health centers, and other providers, will not be able to absorb those costs.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "community health centers\nreal successes\nFederal health policy\nBut\nreal disservice\ncommunity health centers\ncuts in Medicaid\nMedicaid\nis the lifeblood of these centers\nwould not be viable\ncrucial source of payment\nnot going to be around anymore\ncuts in Medicaid\ntake away the guarantee of coverage\ndamaging the community health center program just as directly as if we slashed its funding\ncommunity health centers\ndirectly threatened\ndamage these institutions beyond repair\nmany more uninsured\nmore uninsured\nless payment\ncommunity health centers\nwill not be able to absorb those costs", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Community Health Centers will be forced to close\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "community health centers\nIt is one of the real successes of our Federal health policy\nBut\nWe will be doing a real disservice to the community health centers if we make\ncuts in Medicaid that are being proposed\nIt is the Medicaid program that is the lifeblood of these centers\nmany centers just would not be viable\nIt is a crucial source of payment, and they are not going to be around anymore if we make some of these cuts in Medicaid\nIf we cut the Medicaid program and we take away the guarantee of coverage for eligible people, we will be damaging the community health center program just as directly as if we slashed its funding\nIf we accede to State calls for flexibility and take away the payment and coverage guarantees we have given to FQHCs, then it is the viability of the community health centers that will be directly threatened\nchanges in Medicaid\nwould damage these institutions beyond repair\nIn addition to Medicaid, community health centers see the uninsured. Well, we will have many more uninsured if there is not a Medicaid eligibility for them to get that coverage. We will have more uninsured, less payment, and the community health centers, and other providers, will not be able to absorb those costs", "role": "user" }, { "content": "c\nh\nc\ns\nreal successes of\nFederal health policy\nBut\nMedicaid\nis the lifeblood\na crucial source of payment, and they are not going to be around\ncuts\ntake away\ncoverage\ndamaging\njust as\nslashed\nfunding\nmany more uninsured\nless payment\nand\nc\nh\nc\ns\nwill not be able to absorb those costs", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Heg fails", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Unfortunately, this frenetic pace of military activity has seldom produced positive outcomes. As measured against their stated aims, the “long wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly failed, as have the lesser campaigns intended to impart some approximation of peace and stability to Libya, Somalia, and Syria. An equally unfavorable judgment applies to the nebulous enterprise once grandly referred to as the “global war on terrorism,” which continues with no end in sight.\nAnd yet there seems to be little curiosity in U.S. politics today about why recent military exertions, undertaken at great cost in blood and treasure, have yielded so little in the way of durable success. It is widely conceded that “mistakes were made”—preeminent among them the Iraq war initiated in 2003. Yet within establishment circles, the larger implications of such catastrophic missteps remain unexplored. Indeed, the country’s interventionist foreign policy is largely taken for granted and the public pays scant attention. The police killing of Black people provokes outrage—and rightly so. Unsuccessful wars induce only shrugs.\nTHE CHIMERA OF “AMERICAN LEADERSHIP”\nWith something approaching unanimity, Americans “support the troops.” Yet they refrain from inquiring too deeply into what putting the troops in harm’s way has achieved in recent decades. Deference to the military has become a rote piety of American life. In accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency, for example, Joe Biden closed his remarks with an appeal to the Divine on behalf of the nation’s soldiers: “And may God protect our troops.” Yet nowhere in his 24-minute address did Biden make any reference to what U.S. troops were currently doing or why in particular they needed God’s protection. Nor did he offer any thoughts on how a Biden administration might do things differently.\nAmericans don’t particularly want to hear about war or the possibility of war in the present season of overlapping and mutually reinforcing crises. And Biden obliged them in the most important speech of his career. The famously garrulous politician mentioned recent U.S. wars only in passing, briefly referring to his late son, who served in Iraq, and excoriating U.S. President Donald Trump for not responding more aggressively to revelations that Russia put bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.\nThis aversion to taking stock of recent U.S. wars is by no means unique to Biden or confined to the Democratic Party. It is a bipartisan tendency. It also inhibits a long overdue reexamination of basic national security policy.\nBetween the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 2016 presidential election, leaders of both political parties collaborated in trying to demonstrate the efficacy and necessity of what they habitually referred to as “American global leadership.” Embedded in that seemingly benign phrase was a grand strategy of militarized primacy. Unfortunately, the results achieved by this assertion of global leadership proved to be anything but benign, as turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. Although the defense industry and its allies have profited from American wars, the American people have done less well. Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous. They have instead saddled the nation with enormous debt and diverted attention and resources from neglected domestic priorities.\nIn 2020, further occasions for bristling, militarized U.S. leadership beckon. China offers the most obvious example for hawks, with demands that the United States confront the People’s Republic growing more insistent by the day. Many in Washington appear to welcome the prospect of a Sino-American cold war. Other prospective venues for demonstrating assertive U.S. leadership include in operations against Iran, Russia, and even poor benighted Venezuela, with prominent figures in the Beltway eager to have a go at regime change in Caracas.\nTo cling to this paradigm of U.S. global leadership is to perpetuate the assumptions and habits defining post–Cold War U.S. national security policy—and above all the emphasis on amassing and employing military might. The United States grants itself prerogatives allowed to no other country to remain, in its own estimation, history’s “indispensable nation.” To judge by the results achieved in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other recent theaters of war, this imperative will only continue to wreak havoc in the name of freedom, democracy, and humane values.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Unfortunately\nfrenetic\nmilitary activity has seldom produced positive outcomes\nAfghanistan and Iraq\nclearly failed, as have\nlesser campaigns\nto Libya, Somalia, and Syria. An equally unfavorable judgment applies to the\nwar on terrorism,” which continues with no end in sight\nrecent military exertions\nyielded so little in the way of durable success\ninterventionist foreign policy is largely taken for granted\nDeference to the military has become a rote piety of American life\nleaders of both\nparties collaborated in trying to demonstrate the efficacy and necessity of\n“American global leadership.” Embedded in that seemingly benign phrase was a grand strategy of militarized primacy. Unfortunately, the results achieved by this assertion of global leadership proved to be anything but benign, as turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. Although the defense industry and its allies have profited from American wars, the American people have done less well. Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous. They have instead saddled the nation with enormous debt and diverted attention and resources from neglected domestic priorities\nTo cling to this paradigm of U.S. global leadership\nwill only continue to wreak havoc in the name of freedom, democracy, and humane values", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Heg fails", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Unfortunately\nfrenetic\nmilitary activity has seldom produced positive outcomes\nAfghanistan and Iraq\nclearly failed, as have\nlesser campaigns\nto Libya, Somalia, and Syria. An equally unfavorable judgment applies to the\nwar on terrorism,” which continues with no end in sight\nrecent military exertions\nyielded so little in the way of durable success\ninterventionist foreign policy is largely taken for granted\nDeference to the military has become a rote piety of American life\nleaders of both\nparties collaborated in trying to demonstrate the efficacy and necessity of\n“American global leadership.” Embedded in that seemingly benign phrase was a grand strategy of militarized primacy. Unfortunately, the results achieved by this assertion of global leadership proved to be anything but benign, as turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. Although the defense industry and its allies have profited from American wars, the American people have done less well. Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous. They have instead saddled the nation with enormous debt and diverted attention and resources from neglected domestic priorities\nTo cling to this paradigm of U.S. global leadership\nwill only continue to wreak havoc in the name of freedom, democracy, and humane values", "role": "user" }, { "content": "seldom\nfailed\nlesser campaigns\nLibya\nSomalia\nSyria\nno end in sight\nso little\ndurable success\ntaken for granted\nrote piety\ntry\nglobal leadership\nmilitarized primacy\nanything but benign\nAfghanistan\nIraq\npeople\nless well\nnot making Americans freer\nmore prosperous\nsaddled\nenormous debt\ndiverted attention and resources\nneglected domestic priorities\nparadigm\nglobal leadership\nonly\nwreak havoc", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Heg fails\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Unfortunately\nfrenetic\nmilitary activity has seldom produced positive outcomes\nAfghanistan and Iraq\nclearly failed, as have\nlesser campaigns\nto Libya, Somalia, and Syria. An equally unfavorable judgment applies to the\nwar on terrorism,” which continues with no end in sight\nrecent military exertions\nyielded so little in the way of durable success\ninterventionist foreign policy is largely taken for granted\nDeference to the military has become a rote piety of American life\nleaders of both\nparties collaborated in trying to demonstrate the efficacy and necessity of\n“American global leadership.” Embedded in that seemingly benign phrase was a grand strategy of militarized primacy. Unfortunately, the results achieved by this assertion of global leadership proved to be anything but benign, as turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. Although the defense industry and its allies have profited from American wars, the American people have done less well. Protracted wars are not making Americans freer or more prosperous. They have instead saddled the nation with enormous debt and diverted attention and resources from neglected domestic priorities\nTo cling to this paradigm of U.S. global leadership\nwill only continue to wreak havoc in the name of freedom, democracy, and humane values", "role": "user" }, { "content": "frenetic\nmilitary activity has seldom produced positive outcomes\nAfghanistan and Iraq\nfailed, as have\nLibya, Somalia, and Syria\nexertions\nyielded\nlittle in\ndurable success\nleaders\ntry\nto demonstrate\nnecessity of\nglobal leadership\nProtracted wars\nsaddled\nwith\ndebt and diverted\nresources from\ndomestic priorities\nTo cling to\nleadership\nwill only\nwreak havoc", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uranium from nukes is the only way to solve fast enough – current solutions take 15 years!", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Global nuclear energy capacity is set to triple by 2050, increasing uranium demand significantly, but current production levels are insufficient.\nThe US and other countries are seeking to ramp up domestic uranium production amidst concerns about dependency on Russian exports.\nUranium prices are rising, and the US faces challenges in reviving its uranium mining industry, which has declined over the past decades.\nAs the need for abundant and expedient carbon-free energy intensifies and solar and wind power deployment hit some major speedbumps, more and more industry experts are calling for a resurgence of nuclear energy. While nuclear power has been out of vogue for decades now, proponents argue that its myriad values can no longer be ignored. \nIn the era of climate change, the benefits of nuclear energy are growing increasingly valuable – nuclear fission yields no greenhouse gas emissions, it’s a proven technology with existing supply chains and well worn blueprints, and, crucially, it’s a base load power source. Unlike solar and wind production, which are variable and answer not to consumer demand but to the whims of the weather, nuclear energy production can be manipulated to provide exactly as much energy as we need, when we need it. \nAs a result, nuclear energy is gaining more and more vocal proponents, and public opinion is shifting in favor of nuclear power expansion. In fact, public support for nuclear energy in the United States is at a 10-year high according to a Gallup poll released last year. And world leaders are listening. At last year’s United Nations climate summit in Expo City Dubai, 22 countries including the U.S. pledged to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. \n“The Declaration recognizes the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and keeping the 1.5-degree goal within reach,” states a press release from the United States Department of Energy. “Core elements of the declaration include working together to advance a goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 and inviting shareholders of international financial institutions to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in energy lending policies,” the statement continues.\nThere’s just one problem with this plan – the world might not have enough uranium production capacity to keep up with a nuclear power boom of that magnitude. \"Where is that uranium going to come from?,\" Nicole Galloway Warland, managing director of Thor Energy, was recently quoted by Yahoo! Finance. \"There’s not enough to go around. There’s a supply deficit.\" Thor Energy is an exploration company with uranium-focused projects in Utah and Colorado.\nEven now, the global nuclear sector is struggling to find sufficient supplies of affordable and responsibly sourced uranium. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the bottom fell out of global uranium mining. Now, as demand is skyrocketing, supply remains relatively low after years of lessened production levels. \nEven before the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 was even launched, global demand for yellowcake uranium was sharply increasing. In fact, global demand hit a ten-year high in October of last year, and prices have climbed accordingly. Though uranium prices still haven’t rebounded to pre-Fukushima levels, they’re well on their way. In fact, some speculators think that they could skyrocket to around $200 per pound by just 2025.\n“You have a focus on energy security colliding with a focus on clean energy,” Grant Isaac, chief financial officer at Cameco, the world’s second-largest uranium producer, told the Financial Times. “The days of buying $40 uranium are over — and probably also for $50 or $60. We’re going to need new supplies,” he added. \nWhat’s more, increasing uranium demand is stirring up geopolitical problems as high yellowcake prices line Russia’s coffers. At present, the lion’s share of global uranium exports is coming out of Russia, undermining the West’s efforts to slap meaningful energy sanctions on the Kremlin in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. \nAs a result, the Biden administration is seeking to increase domestic uranium production. The U.S. has plenty of uranium deposits to dig into, but bringing the industry up to speed will be a challenge. A 2019 Annual Report by the U.S. Uranium Committee of the Energy Minerals Division determined that the U.S. has more than enough uranium to fuel hundreds of years of nuclear power generation, even if nuclear power took up much more of the national energy mix going forward. But new uranium mines take 15 years to come online when permitting is figured in. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "nuclear energy capacity is set to triple by 2050, increasing uranium demand significantly, but current production levels are insufficient\nThe US\nseeking to ramp up domestic uranium production amidst concerns about dependency on Russian exports\nThere’s just one problem\nthe world might not have enough uranium production capacity to keep up with a nuclear power boom\nWhere is that uranium going to come from?,\"\nThere’s a supply deficit\nthe global nuclear sector is struggling to find sufficient supplies of affordable and responsibly sourced uranium\nWe’re going to need new supplies\nincreasing uranium demand is stirring up geopolitical problems\nthe lion’s share of global uranium exports is coming out of Russia, undermining the West’s efforts to slap meaningful energy sanctions on the Kremlin in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine.\nBiden admin\nseeking to increase domestic uranium production\nBut new uranium mines take 15 years", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uranium from nukes is the only way to solve fast enough – current solutions take 15 years!", "role": "system" }, { "content": "nuclear energy capacity is set to triple by 2050, increasing uranium demand significantly, but current production levels are insufficient\nThe US\nseeking to ramp up domestic uranium production amidst concerns about dependency on Russian exports\nThere’s just one problem\nthe world might not have enough uranium production capacity to keep up with a nuclear power boom\nWhere is that uranium going to come from?,\"\nThere’s a supply deficit\nthe global nuclear sector is struggling to find sufficient supplies of affordable and responsibly sourced uranium\nWe’re going to need new supplies\nincreasing uranium demand is stirring up geopolitical problems\nthe lion’s share of global uranium exports is coming out of Russia, undermining the West’s efforts to slap meaningful energy sanctions on the Kremlin in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine.\nBiden admin\nseeking to increase domestic uranium production\nBut new uranium mines take 15 years", "role": "user" }, { "content": "insufficient\nthe world might not have enough uranium production capacity to keep up with a nuclear power boom\nThere’s a supply deficit\nsource\nsanction\nnew\nmines take 15 years", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Uranium from nukes is the only way to solve fast enough – current solutions take 15 years!\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "nuclear energy capacity is set to triple by 2050, increasing uranium demand significantly, but current production levels are insufficient\nThe US\nseeking to ramp up domestic uranium production amidst concerns about dependency on Russian exports\nThere’s just one problem\nthe world might not have enough uranium production capacity to keep up with a nuclear power boom\nWhere is that uranium going to come from?,\"\nThere’s a supply deficit\nthe global nuclear sector is struggling to find sufficient supplies of affordable and responsibly sourced uranium\nWe’re going to need new supplies\nincreasing uranium demand is stirring up geopolitical problems\nthe lion’s share of global uranium exports is coming out of Russia, undermining the West’s efforts to slap meaningful energy sanctions on the Kremlin in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine.\nBiden admin\nseeking to increase domestic uranium production\nBut new uranium mines take 15 years", "role": "user" }, { "content": "nuc\nenergy\nset to triple\nincreasing uranium demand\nbut current production\ninsufficient\nThere’s a supply deficit\nglobal\nsector\nstruggling to\nresponsibly source\nuranium\ndemand\nstirring up\nproblems\nlion’s share\nout of Russia\nundermining the West’s efforts to\nsanction\nthe Kremlin\nBiden\nseeking\ndomestic\nproduction\nBut new\nmines take 15 years", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Outweighs other risks categorically---even at 1% probability.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Yet another serious threat comes from artificial intelligence, or AI. In the near-term, AI systems like those sold by IBM, Microsoft, Amazon and other tech giants could  due to gender and racial biases. According to a paper co-authored by , the former Google employee who  \"after criticizing its approach to minority hiring and the biases built into today's artificial intelligence systems,\" facial recognition software  \"less accurate at identifying women and people of color, which means its use can end up discriminating against them.\" These are very real problems affecting large groups of people that require urgent attention.\nBut there are also longer-term risks, as well, arising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence. An artificial superintelligence, or ASI, would by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest, such as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on. Although there is no obvious leap from current \"deep-learning\" algorithms to ASI, there is a good case to make that the creation of an ASI is not a matter of if but when: Sooner or later, scientists will figure out how to build an ASI, or figure out how to build an AI system that can build an ASI, perhaps by modifying its own code.\nWhen we do this, it will be the most significant event in human history: Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself. What would happen? Would paradise ensue? Or would the ASI promptly destroy us?\nI believe we should take the arguments  \"a plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe\" very seriously. Even if the probability of such arguments being correct is low, a risk is standardly  as the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences. And since the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability (multiplied by this consequence) would yield a sky-high risk.\nEven more, the very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of our species also lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire biosphere. Fundamentally, the risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an environmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an environmental issue that concerns all earthly life, which is why I have been calling for an Extinction Rebellion-like movement to form around the dangers of ASI — a threat that, like climate change, could potentially harm every creature on the planet.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "a\nserious threat comes from artificial intelligence\nthere are\nrisks\narising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence\nAn artificial superintelligence\nwould by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest\nsuch as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on\nit will be the most significant event in human history: Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself\nWhat would happen?\nwould the ASI promptly destroy us?\na plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe\nEven if the probability of such arguments being correct is low\na risk is standardly\nas the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences\nsince the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability\nwould yield a sky-high risk.\nthe very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of our species also lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire biosphere.\nthe risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an\nenvironmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an environmental issue that concerns all earthly life\na threat that\ncould\nharm every creature on the planet.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Outweighs other risks categorically---even at 1% probability.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "a\nserious threat comes from artificial intelligence\nthere are\nrisks\narising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence\nAn artificial superintelligence\nwould by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest\nsuch as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on\nit will be the most significant event in human history: Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself\nWhat would happen?\nwould the ASI promptly destroy us?\na plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe\nEven if the probability of such arguments being correct is low\na risk is standardly\nas the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences\nsince the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability\nwould yield a sky-high risk.\nthe very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of our species also lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire biosphere.\nthe risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an\nenvironmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an environmental issue that concerns all earthly life\na threat that\ncould\nharm every creature on the planet.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "serious threat\nexceed human levels\ngeneral intelligence\nsuperintelligence\nany possible human being\nevery cognitive domain of interest\nmost significant event in human history\nmore clever\ndestroy us?\nplausible default outcome\nexistential catastrophe\nEven if the probability\nlow\nprobability\ntotal annihilation\nwould yield a sky-high risk.\nextinction\nobliterate the entire biosphere\nenvironmental risk.\nhumanity\nall earthly life\nharm every creature on the planet.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Outweighs other risks categorically---even at 1% probability.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "a\nserious threat comes from artificial intelligence\nthere are\nrisks\narising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence\nAn artificial superintelligence\nwould by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest\nsuch as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on\nit will be the most significant event in human history: Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself\nWhat would happen?\nwould the ASI promptly destroy us?\na plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe\nEven if the probability of such arguments being correct is low\na risk is standardly\nas the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences\nsince the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability\nwould yield a sky-high risk.\nthe very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of our species also lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire biosphere.\nthe risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an\nenvironmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an environmental issue that concerns all earthly life\na threat that\ncould\nharm every creature on the planet.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "artificial superintelligence\nsmarter than any\nhuman\nin every cognitive domain\nplausible default outcome\nis existential catastrophe\nEven if\nprobability\nlow\ntotal annihilation\nyield\nsky-high risk.\nASI\nobliterate\nentire biosphere\nrisk\nnot just\nissue of whether humanity survives\nbut\nall\nlife", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Expanded standing causes courts to deny data-protection cases---they’ll be banished because of their intensity and depth", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nThe Seventh Circuit may have said the quiet part out loud: \"The standing rule reduces the workload of the federal judiciary....\" (205) While literally true, that is neither an accepted nor acceptable justification for standing doctrine. (206) The existence of a \"Case\" or \"Controversy\" does not depend on how pleased the court will be to hear it. Article III does not give the judiciary the ability to set its caseload. And a dispute will be no less adversarial between the parties if it is the tenth hearing on a court's calendar rather than the first. Indeed, around the time that the Supreme Court threw standing jurisprudence for a loop in Clapper, it admonished that federal courts are obligated to hear cases falling within their jurisdiction. (207) Yet the appeal of the standing dismissal to the federal judge is impossible to ignore. The massive and increasing caseload in the federal courts is well known. In the data-protection context, cases typically promise to be long and involved. Most arise from large-scale data breaches or inappropriate, indiscriminate data collection. As such, they are usually brought as class actions and implicate complex technical issues. One can certainly understand why overworked judges might be eager to get such cases off their dockets. With that in mind, dismissal for lack of standing has a special appeal over other means of dispensing with a case: it is a non-merits dismissal. Even if erroneous or improperly motivated, a dismissal for lack of standing works relatively little injustice, as its effect is only to banish the suit to state court. Moreover, as the data show, state-law and common-law claims predominate in data-protection litigation--the majority of cases analyzed involved such claims, while fewer than half of cases asserted claims under federal law. Allowing state courts to deal with state-law claims is a hallmark feature of the federal system, CAFA notwithstanding. The Northern District of Illinois' BIPA series of cases may proceed from this impulse. Most were brought initially in state court, then removed to federal court by defendants who seemed intent on challenging plaintiffs' right to bring suit at all. Confronted with the prospect of overseeing a lengthy, complicated class-action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who did not want to be in federal court in the first place against defendants who appeared to be engaging in gamesmanship, the judges of the Northern District of Illinois may well have viewed dismissal for lack of standing as the best of all possible worlds. The data are potentially consistent with this explanation. In particular, appellate courts have been significantly more solicitous of plaintiffs in data-protection cases, finding standing in 75% of cases, compared to only 51% of district courts. In data-breach cases, which likely present both the most technically complicated inquiries and the most diffuse harms, appellate courts upheld standing in 79% of cases, compared to a mere 41% of district court cases.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The standing rule reduces the workload of the federal judiciary\nWhile literally true, that is neither an accepted nor acceptable justification for standing doctrine\nthe appeal of the standing dismissal to the federal judge is impossible to ignore\nIn the data-protection context, cases typically promise to be long and involved\nMost arise from large-scale data breaches or inappropriate, indiscriminate data collection. As such, they are usually brought as class actions and implicate complex technical issues. One can certainly understand why overworked judges might be eager to get such cases off their dockets.\ndismissal\n has a special appeal\nThe data are potentially consistent with this explanation\nin data-protection cases", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Expanded standing causes courts to deny data-protection cases---they’ll be banished because of their intensity and depth", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The standing rule reduces the workload of the federal judiciary\nWhile literally true, that is neither an accepted nor acceptable justification for standing doctrine\nthe appeal of the standing dismissal to the federal judge is impossible to ignore\nIn the data-protection context, cases typically promise to be long and involved\nMost arise from large-scale data breaches or inappropriate, indiscriminate data collection. As such, they are usually brought as class actions and implicate complex technical issues. One can certainly understand why overworked judges might be eager to get such cases off their dockets.\ndismissal\n has a special appeal\nThe data are potentially consistent with this explanation\nin data-protection cases", "role": "user" }, { "content": "workload\njudiciary\nacceptable\ndata-protection context\nlong\ninvolved\nclass actions\ncomplex\noverworked judges\neager\noff their dockets\nspecial appeal\nconsistent\nexplanation\nin data-protection cases", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Expanded standing causes courts to deny data-protection cases---they’ll be banished because of their intensity and depth\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The standing rule reduces the workload of the federal judiciary\nWhile literally true, that is neither an accepted nor acceptable justification for standing doctrine\nthe appeal of the standing dismissal to the federal judge is impossible to ignore\nIn the data-protection context, cases typically promise to be long and involved\nMost arise from large-scale data breaches or inappropriate, indiscriminate data collection. As such, they are usually brought as class actions and implicate complex technical issues. One can certainly understand why overworked judges might be eager to get such cases off their dockets.\ndismissal\n has a special appeal\nThe data are potentially consistent with this explanation\nin data-protection cases", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The standing rule reduces the workload of the\njudiciary\nthe appeal of the standing dismissal to the federal judge is impossible to ignore\ndata-protection\ncases\npromise to be long and involved\nMost arise from large-scale\nbreaches or\nindiscriminate data collection\nthey are\nclass actions and implicate complex technical issues\nOne can certainly understand why overworked judges might be eager to get such cases off their dockets\ndismissal\nhas a special appeal\ndata are\nconsistent with this explanation\nin data-protection cases", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Aff guts the economy—chilling", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nThat regulatory skepticism had a particular salience for antitrust law, which itself is designed to maintain a particular balance between private and government action in markets. n53 Since Adam Smith, the argument of so-called free-market intellectuals has not been that markets are perfect but rather that they are comparatively better at solving problems than governments. Part of the argument is that, in most cases, market forces will drive a firm that has adopted an inefficient practice to shift to a more efficient one, lest it lose more business than it gains from the practice. But if antitrust law outlawed a practice, there is no potential for the market to correct--the practice once outlawed would remain outlawed. n54 And because antitrust law applies to all industries, a practice outlawed for one firm or industry would be outlawed for all firms in all industries, or be interpreted as such by risk-averse firms and their risk-averse lawyers--not to mention the treble damages that the liable antitrust defendant would have to pay.\n[FOOTNOTE] n55 See Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264, 284 (2007) (\"In sum, an antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to the securities markets and by a diminished need for antitrust enforcement to address anticompetitive conduct.\"); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 (2007) (\"It is one thing to be cautious before dismissing an antitrust complaint in advance of discovery, but quite another to forget that proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive.\") Verizon Commc'ns, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 414 (2004) (\"Mistaken inferences and the resulting false condemnations 'are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.'\") (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 594 (1986)). [END FOOTNOTE]\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "if antitrust law outlawed a practice, there is no potential for the market to correct--the practice once outlawed would remain outlawed\nbecause antitrust law applies to all industries, a practice outlawed for one firm or industry would be outlawed for all firms in all industries, or be interpreted as such by risk-averse firms and their risk-averse lawyers--not to mention the treble damages that the liable antitrust defendant would have to pay\nan antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to\nmarkets\nMistaken inferences and\nfalse condemnations 'are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Aff guts the economy—chilling", "role": "system" }, { "content": "if antitrust law outlawed a practice, there is no potential for the market to correct--the practice once outlawed would remain outlawed\nbecause antitrust law applies to all industries, a practice outlawed for one firm or industry would be outlawed for all firms in all industries, or be interpreted as such by risk-averse firms and their risk-averse lawyers--not to mention the treble damages that the liable antitrust defendant would have to pay\nan antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to\nmarkets\nMistaken inferences and\nfalse condemnations 'are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect", "role": "user" }, { "content": "all industries\none firm or industry\nall firms in all industries\ninterpreted as such\nrisk-averse firms\nrisk-averse lawyers\ntreble damages\nsubstantial risk\ninferences\nespecially costly\nchill the very conduct", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Aff guts the economy—chilling\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "if antitrust law outlawed a practice, there is no potential for the market to correct--the practice once outlawed would remain outlawed\nbecause antitrust law applies to all industries, a practice outlawed for one firm or industry would be outlawed for all firms in all industries, or be interpreted as such by risk-averse firms and their risk-averse lawyers--not to mention the treble damages that the liable antitrust defendant would have to pay\nan antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to\nmarkets\nMistaken inferences and\nfalse condemnations 'are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect", "role": "user" }, { "content": "because antitrust\napplies to all industries, a practice outlawed for one\nindustry would be outlawed for all firms in all industries, or be interpreted as such by risk-averse firms and\nrisk-averse lawyers\nantitrust\nis accompanied by\nsubstantial risk\nto\nmarkets\nMistaken inferences\n'are\ncostly\nthey chill\nconduct", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Their death link arguments radically devalue life by erasing any difference between life and death. Baudrillard’s fetish for sign’s and symbols replaces the beauty of biology with nihilism and indifference.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Yet does the sort of symbolic exchange which Baudrillard advocates really provide a solution to the question of death? Baudrillard’s notion of symbolic exchange between life and death and his ultimate embrace of nihilism (see 4.4) is probably his most un-Nietzschean moment, the instant in which his thought radically devalues life and focuses with a fascinated gaze on that which is most terrible — death. In a popular French reading of Nietzsche, his ‘transvaluation of values’ demanded negation of all repressive and life- negating values in favor of affirmation of life, joy and happiness. This ‘philosophy of value’ valorized life over death and derived its values from phenomena which enhanced, refined and nurtured human life. In Baudrillard, by contrast, life does not exist as an autonomous source of value, and the body exists only as ‘the carnality of signs,’ as a mode of display of signification. His sign fetishism erases all materiality from the body and social life, and makes possible a fascinated aestheticized fetishism of signs as the primary ontological reality. This way of seeing erases suffering, disease, pain and the horror of death from the body and social life and replaces it with the play of signs — Baudrillard’s alternative. Politics too is reduced to a play of signs, and the ways in which different politics alleviate or intensify human suffering disappears from the Baudrillardian universe. Consequently Baudrillard’s theory spirals into a fascination with signs which leads him to embrace certain privileged forms of sign culture and to reject others (that is, the theoretical signs of modernity such as meaning, truth, the social, power and so on) and to pay less and less attention to materiality (that is, to needs, desire, suffering and so on) a trajectory will ultimately lead him to embrace nihilism (see 4.4). \nC) Objectivity and persuasion are possible\nKramer, 19—Professor, English & Creative Writing, Brandon University (Reinhold, “Truth or Truths?,” Are We Postmodern Yet?, Chapter 1, pp 13-46, SpringerLink, dml)\nAre we postmodern yet? In Jodi Dean’s opinion, emotional intensity nowadays trumps content, but Mark Andrejevic argues convincingly that “the reality-based community persists in various guises.”107 We are postmodern to the extent that we no longer trust reason as the sole arbiter of truth. But we do trust reason, and this was always so, even at the height of postmodernism. All claims, from the physical forces inside the sun to the behaviour of crowds to the validity of tears in a certain situation, are subject, in different ways, to verification. When we now argue against former consensus “truths” in the West (that women weren’t as fully rational as men, that dark-skinned races were intellectually inferior, that gender non-conformity was a sin or a mental illness), we don’t argue that the new truth is merely an effect of new powers held by women, racialized people, or gender minorities. Rather, we argue that the old “knowledge” was not true, that it wasn’t knowledge, but rather belief based on an emotional prejudice. It makes little sense to say that these social questions were only questions of value, with disinterested reason playing no role.\nWhat evidence is there that even in the postmodern era truth is still accessible? Firstly, evolution has always selected for accurate depictions of the environment, and human perceptual systems are “accurate enough to bet one’s life upon.”108 Studies confirm how adept we are at tracking the eye movements, and thus the attention, of others. Not surprisingly, there is also an emotional reward system associated with true propositions.109 Knowing precise truths about the world and other beings is usually adaptive, and is mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex. During a hunt, it’s adaptive to have learned about animal behaviour, while during a social situation it’s adaptive to know (even if unconsciously) that people who blush are more likely to tell the truth. At the same time, of course, evolution doesn’t place a premium on the truth, and false beliefs can be selected for, as long as they promote adaptive behaviour.110\nSam Harris goes much further than evolutionary psychologists do, rashly claiming that reward systems for truth mean that the brain doesn’t separate truth and value, and that “values reduce to a certain type of fact.”111 Against such unsupportable claims, one can easily point to disjunctions between reward systems and value. Drug addiction, successful violence, and rape are all rewarded with dopamine. Successful aggression is usually rewarded in the brain, yet when aggression is directed against us, we have no difficulty calling it immoral. Deception—untruth—is also clearly adaptive in many situations and has been selected for. Here’s the complexity: believers get dopamine rewards when thinking about heaven, and their belief in implausible heavenly crowns can convince them both to slaughter the “heathen” and to act altruistically, especially towards fellow believers. Harris is thus wrong on both counts: the brain’s reward system doesn’t always favour positive values, and it doesn’t favour only facts. Nevertheless, despite Harris’s overreaching, moral truth has been selected for as well. Blushing, an involuntary signal, ought to be selected against, we think, since it can cause the blusher trouble by exposing a lie. However, blushing also signals the blusher’s adherence to the social code—they are embarrassed by the lie—so people tend to treat the blusher more sympathetically than they treat the brazen. Blushing is a costly signal of truth.\nSecondly, the reality-based community persists in language too. Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar revealed how mistaken the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of linguistic relativity was. Subsequently, linguists have been able to show the stable, cross-cultural structure of the language instinct. Pinker cites the case of Simon, a deaf boy: despite only seeing his parents use defective American Sign Language (ASL), Simon, nevertheless, invented proper ASL verb inflections on his own. Severe intellectual deprivation in youth (such as occurs when children are exposed to no language at all) can prevent language development, but Simon’s case—“creolization by a single living child”—is one of many pieces of evidence that language (contrary to the “multiple knowledges” dogma) is not relative to culture in depicting the world: it accurately represents time and a host of other features of the world.112\nTruth is also accessible in that we have multiple methods of gauging the trustworthiness of language. Responding to critics who disparage the return to the personal voice in postmodernism, Charles Lemert counters that non-postmodernist writing (including Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason) is also highly personal, just not in obvious ways.113 While postmodernism greatly deepened the humanities and social sciences by showing that the personal is political, Lemert’s claim ridiculously simplifies the process of rational argument. Kant’s arguments, no matter what their personal source, are more objective than the tweets of Donald Trump. If power determined knowledge, then the best we could hope for would be balance, always quoting both sides of any issue. Savvy PR experts quickly jumped on the balance bandwagon, with the result that global warming deniers for a long time received equal press to scientists who warned against rising temperatures. Yet, as Mark Andrejevic astutely observes, “the fact-checking cottage industry” arose in response to 1980s and 1990s journalism which, despairing of objectivity, planted its flag on the problematic concept of he-said/she-said balance. Objectivity resurfaced as a separate division.114 FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, 150 fact-checking organizations around the world, and the embryonic development of software such as Squash (which in a 30-second delay assesses the claims in political speeches115) all show an affinity with Habermas’s communicative reason against Foucauldian scepticism.\nThe Doublespeak Award for grossly deceptive language116 … what could such an award mean other than that language is capable of transmitting truths about human social interactions? Kellyanne Conway won the award in 2017 for defending Sean Spicer’s falsehoods about the Trump Inauguration attendance by calling the falsehoods “alternative facts.” President George W. Bush won in 2008 when, instead of setting a deadline for the US Army’s withdrawal from Iraq, he spoke of an “aspirational goal.” Had he set a deadline, or had he refused to set a deadline, or had he named factors that might induce the US to postpone a deadline, he would have failed to win the award: his words would either have been truthful or could have had their truthfulness objectively measured in the light of subsequent events. Instead, “as textbook Doublespeak, ‘aspirational goal’ is both a tautology and a paradox. Aspirations and goals are the same thing; and yet when the terms are combined, the effect is to undermine them both, producing a phrase that means, in effect, ‘a goal to which one does not aspire all that much.’”117 It’s easy to forget that, as Michael Tomasello has shown, language itself is a product of joint attention, a cooperative, conventionalized, reason-giving enterprise whose evolution required humans to take a second-personal point of view. This doesn’t necessarily mean objectivity and truth, since language is oriented to group values, yet doublespeak only works because it is set against the baseline expectation that speakers are committed to giving reasons and favouring joint goals, not just the speaker’s goals.118\nSimilarly, George Saunders’s satire in the diminished future of “Pastoralia” (2000) isn’t funny unless we assume a more truthful way of speaking that doesn’t only convey the goals of a single corporation. He satirizes corporate communications in an inter-departmental memo: “Truth is that thing which makes what we want to happen happen. Truth is that thing which, when told, makes those on our team look good, and inspires them to greater efforts.” The same memo denies the rumour that firings will soon take place (they will).119 Saunders and other contemporary writers influenced by postmodernism are unlikely to return to literalist or parochial notions of truth, but these writers do insist that language, in the right hands, is never purely political. Nicoline Timmer, summarizing one of the features of what she calls the “post-postmodern” novel, turns to Wittgenstein’s notion that a relationship between people is a precondition of language.120 Earned trust defines the evolving relationship between novelist and reader, politician and voter, journalist and citizen, fact-checking organization and audience.\nWith the rise of photoshopping, Voco, and Deepfakes, facts are under even more pressure from several directions. Donald Trump’s political success, despite his stunningly low scores on fact-checking websites—much lower than any other politician—shows how often group loyalties and confirmation bias outweigh facts. This is exacerbated by filter bubbles and by the growing tendency of the young not to follow the news. A 2014 poll found that nearly two-thirds of 18- to 29-year-olds and over half of 30- to 50-years-olds got their political news mainly from Facebook. CNN posts news on Snapchat, because that’s where the people are,121 and many reliable news organizations post “sponsored links” that look like news links and that take viewers to dubious celebrity news and deceptive advertisements—the news organizations sabotage themselves for advertising revenue.122 Still, despite targeted news, it has never been easier to check out the truth of a claim, and we don’t spend two minutes on the Internet without making finer and finer distinctions about the affiliations and niches of various websites. What level of language is the writer employing? Do they have any obvious biases? Do they use a wide range of references? And so on. The main difficulties are not a lack of facts or an inability to distinguish them, but our emotional and social ties to particular groups. My lack of knowledge about health insurance may make it easier for a website to fool me by catering to my group prejudices. Nevertheless, my continued relationship with various websites allows me slowly to orient myself as to the level of objectivity in the places I visit. According to John Searle, we join an infinite number of language games—from a testimony in court, to a weather report, to a neighbourhood conversation—and every type of speech activity has its own conventions. The games aren’t chaotic, just complex, though still rules-based, and we’re constantly on the lookout for cues to help us estimate levels of truth,123 as long as we want the truth.\nCooption DA---the alt-right weaponizes their skepticism to seize the levers of power under the veil of “fake news”\nJan Krasni 20. Assistant Professor in German Studies @ the University of Niš & PhD in Philosophy. 7-14-2020. \"How to hijack a discourse? Reflections on the concepts of post-truth and fake news.\" Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol 7. No 32. pp 6. Nature \nPost-truth in the public intellectual field\nAcademics, public intellectuals, and the mainstream media are significantly contributing to the recontextualisation and reconceptualisation of the fake news and post-truth in the broad intellectual field of the West.8 For many of them, the whole critical tradition rooted in Marxism, the leftist movement, postmodern thought, and social constructivism leads to relativisation of scientific truths, common sense, moral values and/or democracy. In other words, in this iteration of the concept, the very intellectual milieu in which post-truth was formulated as a critique of the media and political system is represented as the root of, or rather, the reason for this phenomenon. From Foucault’s ideas of discourse as a programmed meaning production and the regime(s) of truth under which this very meaning making process takes place, to the idea that language defines values or reinforces the hierarchies within society—all of these get recoded by the fake news discourse as forms of intellectual misinformation.\nAs philosopher Lee McIntyre argues, the logic and core arguments of postmodern thought were adopted by right-wing populists and alt-right activists:\n“Even if right-wing politicians and other science deniers were not reading Derrida and Foucault, the germ of the idea made its way to them: science does not have a monopoly on the truth. It is therefore not unreasonable to think that right-wingers are using some of the same arguments and techniques of postmodernism to attack the truth of other scientific claims that clash with their conservative ideology” (McIntyre, 2018, p. 141).9\nIn this line of thought, the critical postmodern approach helped the alt-right to develop their own argumentative patterns when attacking scientific truths (e.g., flat earth), moral virtues (e.g., gender and racial tolerance), and democratic order (e.g., Brexit in UK, AfD in Germany, alt-right in the US) by relativizing truth enough to make fake news and alternative facts competitive. Such interpretations are pursued simultaneously by scholars, theorists, and columnists from different disciplines and the mainstream media—all of whom see themselves as representing liberal and democratic values (McIntyre, 2015, 2018; cf. opinion of the philosopher Daniel Denett in an interview with Cadwalladr, 2017).\n“Call it what you want: relativism, constructivism, deconstruction, postmodernism, critique. The idea is the same: Truth is not found, but made, and making truth means exercising power. The reductive version is simpler and easier to abuse: Fact is fiction, and anything goes. It’s this version of critical social theory that the populist right has seized on and that Trump has made into a powerful weapon. […] For decades, critical social scientists and humanists have chipped away at the idea of truth. We’ve deconstructed facts, insisted that knowledge is situated and denied the existence of objectivity” (Williams, 2017).\nThis line of thought in the mainstream media such as the New York Times puts the traditions of post-structural theory, social constructivism, and science–technology studies in the same intellectual context as the right wing politicians, their parties and think tanks,10 and ascribes (usually implicitly, but in many cases also explicitly) the right ideology to the forerunners of critical and postmodern thought.\nSimultaneously, the accusation of ‘progressive’ journalists pursuing a leftist ideology through fake news comes expectedly from the conservative point of view: “In sum, fake news is journalism’s popular version of the nihilism of campus postmodernism. To progressive journalists, advancing a left-wing political agenda is important enough to justify the creation of misleading narratives and outright falsehoods to deceive the public—to justify, in other words, the creation of fake but otherwise useful news.” (Hanson, 2017). The category of ‘progressive journalism,’ in this context, refers to the mainstream media mentioned in Hanson’s article: the New York Times, CNN and CBS. Despite the remarks on nepotism among media elites and the practice of media spinning—“No one has described the methodology of fake news better than Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for Barack Obama and brother of the president of CBS News, David Rhodes” (Hanson, 2017)—the ideological enemy is found in the field of academia and in postmodernism. Hanson writes\n“And indeed, the fake news mindset ultimately can be traced back to the campus. Academic postmodernism derides facts and absolutes and insists that there are only narratives and interpretations that gain credence, depending on the power of the story-teller. […] The work of French postmodernists—such as Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida that mesmerised academics in the 1980s with rehashed Nietzschean banalities about the absence of facts and the primacy of interpretation—has now been filtered by the media to a nationwide audience” (Hanson, 2017).\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Baudrillard’s notion of symbolic exchange between life and death\nradically devalues life and focuses with a fascinated gaze on that which is most terrible — death\nIn Baudrillard\nlife does not exist as an autonomous source of value, and the body exists only as ‘the carnality of signs,’ as a mode of display of signification. His sign fetishism erases all materiality from the body and social life, and makes possible a fascinated aestheticized fetishism of signs as the primary ontological reality\nThis way of seeing erases suffering, disease, pain and the horror of death from the body and social life and replaces it with the play of signs\nBaudrillard’s alternative\nPolitics too is reduced to a play of signs, and the ways in which different politics alleviate or intensify human suffering disappears from the Baudrillardian universe\nConsequently Baudrillard’s theory spirals into a fascination with signs which leads him to embrace certain privileged forms of sign culture and to reject others\nand to pay less and less attention to materiality\na trajectory will ultimately lead him to embrace nihilism\nare possible\nIn\nDean’s opinion, emotional intensity nowadays trumps content, but\nthe reality-based community persists in various guises\nwe no longer trust reason as the sole arbiter of truth. But we do trust reason, and this was always so, even at the height of postmodernism. All claims, from the physical forces inside the sun to the behaviour of crowds to the validity of tears in a certain situation, are subject, in different ways, to verification. When we now argue against former consensus “truths” in the West\nthat women weren’t as fully rational as men, that dark-skinned races were intellectually inferior, that gender non-conformity was a sin or a mental illness\nwe don’t argue that the new truth is merely an effect of new powers\nRather, we argue that the old “knowledge” was not true, that it wasn’t knowledge, but rather belief based on an emotional prejudice\nWhat evidence is there that\ntruth is still accessible?\nevolution has always selected for accurate depictions of the environment, and human perceptual systems are “accurate enough to bet one’s life upon.”\nStudies confirm how adept we are at tracking the eye movements, and thus the attention, of others\nthere is also an emotional reward system associated with true propositions\nKnowing precise truths about the world and other beings is usually adaptive, and is mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex\nthe reality-based community persists in language too\nChomsky’s universal grammar revealed how mistaken\nlinguistic relativity was\nlinguists have been able to show the stable, cross-cultural structure of the language instinct\nTruth is also accessible in that we have multiple methods of gauging the trustworthiness of language\nIf power determined knowledge, then the best we could hope for would be balance, always quoting both sides of any issue\nYet\nObjectivity resurfaced as a separate division\nIt’s easy to forget that\nlanguage itself is a product of joint attention, a cooperative, conventionalized, reason-giving enterprise whose evolution required humans to take a second-personal point of view\ndoublespeak only works because it is set against the baseline expectation that speakers are committed to giving reasons and favouring joint goals, not just the speaker’s goals\nfacts are under even more pressure from several directions\nTrump’s\nsuccess\nshows how often group loyalties and confirmation bias outweigh facts\nStill\nit has never been easier to check out the truth of a claim\nThe main difficulties are not a lack of facts or an inability to distinguish them\nknowledge\nallows me slowly to orient myself as to the level of objectivity in the places I visit\nwe join an infinite number of language games\nand every\nspeech activity has its own conventions. The games aren’t chaotic, just complex, though still rules-based, and we’re constantly on the lookout for cues to help us estimate levels of truth\nweaponizes\nseize the levers of power\nAcademics\npublic intellectuals\nare significantly contributing to\nfake news\nthe very intellectual milieu in which post-truth was formulated as a critique of the media and political system is represented as the root of\nor\nthe reason for this phenomenon\nideas of discourse\nget recoded by the fake news discourse as forms of intellectual misinformation\nand\nwere adopted by right-wing populists and alt-right activists\nEven if right-wing politicians and\nscience deniers were not reading Derrida and Foucault\nthe germ of the idea made its way to them\nscience does not have a monopoly on the truth\nright-wingers are using some of the same arguments and techniques of postmodernism to attack the truth of other scientific claims that clash with their conservative ideology\nthe critical postmodern approach helped the alt-right to develop their own argumentative patterns when attacking scientific truths\nmoral virtues\nand democratic order\nby relativizing truth enough to make fake news\ncompetitive\nSuch interpretations are pursued simultaneously by scholars\nwhom see themselves as representing liberal and democratic values\nThe idea is the same\nTruth is not found\nbut made\nand making truth means exercising power\nThe reductive version is simpler and easier to abuse\nFact is fiction\nand anything goes\nthe populist right has seized on and that Trump has made into a powerful weapon\ncritical social scientists\nhave chipped away at the idea of truth\nWe’ve deconstructed facts\ninsisted that knowledge is situated and denied the existence of objectivity\nfake news is journalism’s popular version of the nihilism of campus postmodernism\nthe ideological enemy is found in the field of academia and in postmodernism\nthe fake news mindset\ncan be traced back to the campus\nThe work of French postmodernists\nhas now been filtered by the media to a nationwide audience", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Their death link arguments radically devalue life by erasing any difference between life and death. Baudrillard’s fetish for sign’s and symbols replaces the beauty of biology with nihilism and indifference.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Baudrillard’s notion of symbolic exchange between life and death\nradically devalues life and focuses with a fascinated gaze on that which is most terrible — death\nIn Baudrillard\nlife does not exist as an autonomous source of value, and the body exists only as ‘the carnality of signs,’ as a mode of display of signification. His sign fetishism erases all materiality from the body and social life, and makes possible a fascinated aestheticized fetishism of signs as the primary ontological reality\nThis way of seeing erases suffering, disease, pain and the horror of death from the body and social life and replaces it with the play of signs\nBaudrillard’s alternative\nPolitics too is reduced to a play of signs, and the ways in which different politics alleviate or intensify human suffering disappears from the Baudrillardian universe\nConsequently Baudrillard’s theory spirals into a fascination with signs which leads him to embrace certain privileged forms of sign culture and to reject others\nand to pay less and less attention to materiality\na trajectory will ultimately lead him to embrace nihilism\nare possible\nIn\nDean’s opinion, emotional intensity nowadays trumps content, but\nthe reality-based community persists in various guises\nwe no longer trust reason as the sole arbiter of truth. But we do trust reason, and this was always so, even at the height of postmodernism. All claims, from the physical forces inside the sun to the behaviour of crowds to the validity of tears in a certain situation, are subject, in different ways, to verification. When we now argue against former consensus “truths” in the West\nthat women weren’t as fully rational as men, that dark-skinned races were intellectually inferior, that gender non-conformity was a sin or a mental illness\nwe don’t argue that the new truth is merely an effect of new powers\nRather, we argue that the old “knowledge” was not true, that it wasn’t knowledge, but rather belief based on an emotional prejudice\nWhat evidence is there that\ntruth is still accessible?\nevolution has always selected for accurate depictions of the environment, and human perceptual systems are “accurate enough to bet one’s life upon.”\nStudies confirm how adept we are at tracking the eye movements, and thus the attention, of others\nthere is also an emotional reward system associated with true propositions\nKnowing precise truths about the world and other beings is usually adaptive, and is mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex\nthe reality-based community persists in language too\nChomsky’s universal grammar revealed how mistaken\nlinguistic relativity was\nlinguists have been able to show the stable, cross-cultural structure of the language instinct\nTruth is also accessible in that we have multiple methods of gauging the trustworthiness of language\nIf power determined knowledge, then the best we could hope for would be balance, always quoting both sides of any issue\nYet\nObjectivity resurfaced as a separate division\nIt’s easy to forget that\nlanguage itself is a product of joint attention, a cooperative, conventionalized, reason-giving enterprise whose evolution required humans to take a second-personal point of view\ndoublespeak only works because it is set against the baseline expectation that speakers are committed to giving reasons and favouring joint goals, not just the speaker’s goals\nfacts are under even more pressure from several directions\nTrump’s\nsuccess\nshows how often group loyalties and confirmation bias outweigh facts\nStill\nit has never been easier to check out the truth of a claim\nThe main difficulties are not a lack of facts or an inability to distinguish them\nknowledge\nallows me slowly to orient myself as to the level of objectivity in the places I visit\nwe join an infinite number of language games\nand every\nspeech activity has its own conventions. The games aren’t chaotic, just complex, though still rules-based, and we’re constantly on the lookout for cues to help us estimate levels of truth\nweaponizes\nseize the levers of power\nAcademics\npublic intellectuals\nare significantly contributing to\nfake news\nthe very intellectual milieu in which post-truth was formulated as a critique of the media and political system is represented as the root of\nor\nthe reason for this phenomenon\nideas of discourse\nget recoded by the fake news discourse as forms of intellectual misinformation\nand\nwere adopted by right-wing populists and alt-right activists\nEven if right-wing politicians and\nscience deniers were not reading Derrida and Foucault\nthe germ of the idea made its way to them\nscience does not have a monopoly on the truth\nright-wingers are using some of the same arguments and techniques of postmodernism to attack the truth of other scientific claims that clash with their conservative ideology\nthe critical postmodern approach helped the alt-right to develop their own argumentative patterns when attacking scientific truths\nmoral virtues\nand democratic order\nby relativizing truth enough to make fake news\ncompetitive\nSuch interpretations are pursued simultaneously by scholars\nwhom see themselves as representing liberal and democratic values\nThe idea is the same\nTruth is not found\nbut made\nand making truth means exercising power\nThe reductive version is simpler and easier to abuse\nFact is fiction\nand anything goes\nthe populist right has seized on and that Trump has made into a powerful weapon\ncritical social scientists\nhave chipped away at the idea of truth\nWe’ve deconstructed facts\ninsisted that knowledge is situated and denied the existence of objectivity\nfake news is journalism’s popular version of the nihilism of campus postmodernism\nthe ideological enemy is found in the field of academia and in postmodernism\nthe fake news mindset\ncan be traced back to the campus\nThe work of French postmodernists\nhas now been filtered by the media to a nationwide audience", "role": "user" }, { "content": "public intellectuals\npost-truth\nroot\nreason\nrecoded\nintellectual misinformation\nright-wing populists\nalt-right activists\nsame arguments\ntechniques\nattack\ntruth\nscientific claims\ntheir conservative ideology\nargumentative patterns\nrelativizing truth\npursued simultaneously\nliberal\ndemocratic values\nnot found\nmade\nexercising power\nsimpler\neasier to abuse\nFact is fiction\nanything goes\nseized on\npowerful weapon\nideological enemy", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Their death link arguments radically devalue life by erasing any difference between life and death. Baudrillard’s fetish for sign’s and symbols replaces the beauty of biology with nihilism and indifference.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Baudrillard’s notion of symbolic exchange between life and death\nradically devalues life and focuses with a fascinated gaze on that which is most terrible — death\nIn Baudrillard\nlife does not exist as an autonomous source of value, and the body exists only as ‘the carnality of signs,’ as a mode of display of signification. His sign fetishism erases all materiality from the body and social life, and makes possible a fascinated aestheticized fetishism of signs as the primary ontological reality\nThis way of seeing erases suffering, disease, pain and the horror of death from the body and social life and replaces it with the play of signs\nBaudrillard’s alternative\nPolitics too is reduced to a play of signs, and the ways in which different politics alleviate or intensify human suffering disappears from the Baudrillardian universe\nConsequently Baudrillard’s theory spirals into a fascination with signs which leads him to embrace certain privileged forms of sign culture and to reject others\nand to pay less and less attention to materiality\na trajectory will ultimately lead him to embrace nihilism\nare possible\nIn\nDean’s opinion, emotional intensity nowadays trumps content, but\nthe reality-based community persists in various guises\nwe no longer trust reason as the sole arbiter of truth. But we do trust reason, and this was always so, even at the height of postmodernism. All claims, from the physical forces inside the sun to the behaviour of crowds to the validity of tears in a certain situation, are subject, in different ways, to verification. When we now argue against former consensus “truths” in the West\nthat women weren’t as fully rational as men, that dark-skinned races were intellectually inferior, that gender non-conformity was a sin or a mental illness\nwe don’t argue that the new truth is merely an effect of new powers\nRather, we argue that the old “knowledge” was not true, that it wasn’t knowledge, but rather belief based on an emotional prejudice\nWhat evidence is there that\ntruth is still accessible?\nevolution has always selected for accurate depictions of the environment, and human perceptual systems are “accurate enough to bet one’s life upon.”\nStudies confirm how adept we are at tracking the eye movements, and thus the attention, of others\nthere is also an emotional reward system associated with true propositions\nKnowing precise truths about the world and other beings is usually adaptive, and is mediated by the medial prefrontal cortex\nthe reality-based community persists in language too\nChomsky’s universal grammar revealed how mistaken\nlinguistic relativity was\nlinguists have been able to show the stable, cross-cultural structure of the language instinct\nTruth is also accessible in that we have multiple methods of gauging the trustworthiness of language\nIf power determined knowledge, then the best we could hope for would be balance, always quoting both sides of any issue\nYet\nObjectivity resurfaced as a separate division\nIt’s easy to forget that\nlanguage itself is a product of joint attention, a cooperative, conventionalized, reason-giving enterprise whose evolution required humans to take a second-personal point of view\ndoublespeak only works because it is set against the baseline expectation that speakers are committed to giving reasons and favouring joint goals, not just the speaker’s goals\nfacts are under even more pressure from several directions\nTrump’s\nsuccess\nshows how often group loyalties and confirmation bias outweigh facts\nStill\nit has never been easier to check out the truth of a claim\nThe main difficulties are not a lack of facts or an inability to distinguish them\nknowledge\nallows me slowly to orient myself as to the level of objectivity in the places I visit\nwe join an infinite number of language games\nand every\nspeech activity has its own conventions. The games aren’t chaotic, just complex, though still rules-based, and we’re constantly on the lookout for cues to help us estimate levels of truth\nweaponizes\nseize the levers of power\nAcademics\npublic intellectuals\nare significantly contributing to\nfake news\nthe very intellectual milieu in which post-truth was formulated as a critique of the media and political system is represented as the root of\nor\nthe reason for this phenomenon\nideas of discourse\nget recoded by the fake news discourse as forms of intellectual misinformation\nand\nwere adopted by right-wing populists and alt-right activists\nEven if right-wing politicians and\nscience deniers were not reading Derrida and Foucault\nthe germ of the idea made its way to them\nscience does not have a monopoly on the truth\nright-wingers are using some of the same arguments and techniques of postmodernism to attack the truth of other scientific claims that clash with their conservative ideology\nthe critical postmodern approach helped the alt-right to develop their own argumentative patterns when attacking scientific truths\nmoral virtues\nand democratic order\nby relativizing truth enough to make fake news\ncompetitive\nSuch interpretations are pursued simultaneously by scholars\nwhom see themselves as representing liberal and democratic values\nThe idea is the same\nTruth is not found\nbut made\nand making truth means exercising power\nThe reductive version is simpler and easier to abuse\nFact is fiction\nand anything goes\nthe populist right has seized on and that Trump has made into a powerful weapon\ncritical social scientists\nhave chipped away at the idea of truth\nWe’ve deconstructed facts\ninsisted that knowledge is situated and denied the existence of objectivity\nfake news is journalism’s popular version of the nihilism of campus postmodernism\nthe ideological enemy is found in the field of academia and in postmodernism\nthe fake news mindset\ncan be traced back to the campus\nThe work of French postmodernists\nhas now been filtered by the media to a nationwide audience", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Baudrillard’s notion of symbolic exchange between life and death\nradically devalues life and focuses with a fascinated gaze on that which is most terrible — death\nIn Baudrillard\nlife does not exist as an autonomous source of value, and the body exists only as\na mode of display of signification\nHis sign fetishism erases all materiality from the body and social life\nThis way of seeing erases suffering, disease, pain and the horror of death from the body and social life and replaces it with the play of signs\nBaudrillard’s alternative\nPolitics too is reduced to a play of signs, and the ways in which different politics alleviate or intensify human suffering disappears from the Baudrillardian universe\nreality\npersists\nwe no longer trust reason as the sole arbiter\nBut we do trust reason\nAll claims\nare subject\nto verification\nevolution has always selected for accurate depictions\nStudies confirm\nthere is\nan emotional reward system associated with true propositions\nlinguists\nshow the stable, cross-cultural\nlanguage instinct\nwe have multiple methods of gauging\ntrustworthiness\nIf power determined knowledge\nthe best we could hope for would be balance\nYet\nObjectivity resurfaced\nlanguage itself is a product of joint attention\ndoublespeak only works because it is set against the\nexpectation that speakers are\ngiving reasons\nit has never been easier to check\ntruth\nThe main difficulties are not a lack of facts\nevery\nspeech activity has its own conventions. The games aren’t chaotic, just complex, though still rules-based\ncues\nhelp us estimate levels of truth\npublic intellectuals\nare\ncontributing to\nfake news\npost-truth\nget recoded by the fake news\nas\nintellectual misinformation\nright-wingers are using\nthe\narguments and techniques of postmodernism to attack\nscientific claims that clash with their\nideology\nby relativizing truth\nto make fake news\nSuch\nare pursued\nby scholars\nwhom see themselves as\nliberal\nTruth is not found\nbut made\nmeans exercising power\nFact is fiction\nand anything goes\nthe\nright has seized on and\nmade into a powerful weapon\nfake news\ncan be traced back to the campus\nThe work of\npo\nmo\nhas\nbeen filtered by the media to a nationwide audience", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Adopting sole purpose defuses nuclear brinksmanship with Russia", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Eliminating the ambiguity by adopting the sole purpose might not provide a huge security bonus, but it would have a positive security impact. Russia likely would not follow, at least not in the near term. However, the change could help defuse the current situation, in which both Washington and Moscow believe that the other seeks to lower the nuclear threshold and thus is adjusting its own nuclear policy accordingly. It is not in the U.S. interest that the Russians believe America might go nuclear first and develop (or further develop) a posture to beat Washington to the nuclear punch. That fosters conditions that could be very dangerous in a conventional crisis or conflict and make nuclear use more likely.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Eliminating the ambiguity by adopting\nsole purpose\nwould have a positive security impact\nthe change could help defuse the\nsituation, in which\nWashington and Moscow believe\nthe other seeks to lower the nuclear threshold and\nis adjusting\nnuclear policy accordingly\nconditions\ncould be very dangerous in a conventional crisis\nand make nuclear use more likely", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Adopting sole purpose defuses nuclear brinksmanship with Russia", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Eliminating the ambiguity by adopting\nsole purpose\nwould have a positive security impact\nthe change could help defuse the\nsituation, in which\nWashington and Moscow believe\nthe other seeks to lower the nuclear threshold and\nis adjusting\nnuclear policy accordingly\nconditions\ncould be very dangerous in a conventional crisis\nand make nuclear use more likely", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Eliminating the ambiguity\npositive security impact\nhelp defuse\nMoscow\ndangerous in a conventional crisis\nmake nuclear use more likely", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Adopting sole purpose defuses nuclear brinksmanship with Russia\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Eliminating the ambiguity by adopting the sole purpose might not provide a huge security bonus, but it would have a positive security impact. Russia likely would not follow, at least not in the near term. However, the change could help defuse the current situation, in which both Washington and Moscow believe that the other seeks to lower the nuclear threshold and thus is adjusting its own nuclear policy accordingly. It is not in the U.S. interest that the Russians believe America might go nuclear first and develop (or further develop) a posture to beat Washington to the nuclear punch. That fosters conditions that could be very dangerous in a conventional crisis or conflict and make nuclear use more likely.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Eliminating\nambiguity by adopting\nsole purpose\nwould have a positive security impact\ncould help defuse the\nsituation, in which\nMoscow\nseeks to lower the nuclear threshold\nconditions\ncould be\nin a conventional crisis\nmake nuclear use more likely", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Billions of potential plaintiffs", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals asserts that 250,000 animals are victims of hoarding alone each year in the United States.71 But clearly, the scope of potential new plaintiffs is much broader. In 2012, the American Veterinary Medical Association estimated that approximately 149 million pet dogs, cats, and horses live in the United States.72 There are approximately 95 million cattle73 and 73 million hogs and pigs in the United States.74 These five species alone, all of which are the subject of legal protections against abuse or neglect, exist in the United States in numbers almost equivalent to its human population.75 The ALDF estimates that 9 billion animals are raised and used for food in the United States each year.76 Opening up the courts to this vast number of potential plaintiffs would invite extreme societal disruption.\nFurther, ambitions related to the Vercher case may go far beyond allowing animals alleged to be victims to file torts lawsuits. An ALDF press release issued when it initiated Vercher stated that “existing laws still lag far behind our current understanding of animal sentience by classifying animals as property.”77\nThis appears to reflect a position not only that abused animals should be legal persons, but also that sentient animals’ property status should be abolished altogether. If animals capable of suffering pain were no longer classified as a form of property, potential implications for food sources, scientific research, animal-based products, and the economy in general would be monumental. If the first proposed jump is made––a mammal is a legal person for purposes of abuse and neglect laws––the second jump to arguing that a legal person cannot be eaten or held “captive” for any human uses is obvious.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "250,000 animals are victims of hoarding alone each year\nthe scope of potential new plaintiffs is much broader\n149 million pet dogs, cats, and horses live in the U\nS\n95 million cattle\nand 73 million hogs and pigs\nThese five species\nwhich are the subject of legal protections against abuse or neglect, exist in\nnumbers\nequivalent to its human population.\n9 billion animals are raised and used for food in the United States each year\nOpening up the courts to this vast number of potential plaintiffs would invite extreme societal disruption.\nambitions\nmay go far beyond allowing animals alleged to be victims to file torts lawsuits\nthat\nsentient animals’ property status should be abolished altogether. If animals capable of suffering pain were no longer classified as a form of property, potential implications for food sources, scientific research, animal-based products, and the economy in general would be monumental. If the first proposed jump is made\na mammal is a legal person\nthe second jump to arguing that a legal person cannot be eaten or held “captive” for any human uses is obvious.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Billions of potential plaintiffs", "role": "system" }, { "content": "250,000 animals are victims of hoarding alone each year\nthe scope of potential new plaintiffs is much broader\n149 million pet dogs, cats, and horses live in the U\nS\n95 million cattle\nand 73 million hogs and pigs\nThese five species\nwhich are the subject of legal protections against abuse or neglect, exist in\nnumbers\nequivalent to its human population.\n9 billion animals are raised and used for food in the United States each year\nOpening up the courts to this vast number of potential plaintiffs would invite extreme societal disruption.\nambitions\nmay go far beyond allowing animals alleged to be victims to file torts lawsuits\nthat\nsentient animals’ property status should be abolished altogether. If animals capable of suffering pain were no longer classified as a form of property, potential implications for food sources, scientific research, animal-based products, and the economy in general would be monumental. If the first proposed jump is made\na mammal is a legal person\nthe second jump to arguing that a legal person cannot be eaten or held “captive” for any human uses is obvious.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "250,000\nhoarding\nmuch broader\n149 million\ndogs\ncats\nhorses\n95 million cattle\n73 million\npigs\n9 billion animals\nOpening up the courts\nvast number\nextreme societal disruption.\nambitions\nfar beyond\nproperty status\nabolished\nfood sources\nscientific research\nanimal-based products\neconomy\nmonumental\nfirst proposed jump\nlegal person\nsecond jump\ncannot be eaten\ncaptive\nobvious", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Billions of potential plaintiffs\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "250,000 animals are victims of hoarding alone each year\nthe scope of potential new plaintiffs is much broader\n149 million pet dogs, cats, and horses live in the U\nS\n95 million cattle\nand 73 million hogs and pigs\nThese five species\nwhich are the subject of legal protections against abuse or neglect, exist in\nnumbers\nequivalent to its human population.\n9 billion animals are raised and used for food in the United States each year\nOpening up the courts to this vast number of potential plaintiffs would invite extreme societal disruption.\nambitions\nmay go far beyond allowing animals alleged to be victims to file torts lawsuits\nthat\nsentient animals’ property status should be abolished altogether. If animals capable of suffering pain were no longer classified as a form of property, potential implications for food sources, scientific research, animal-based products, and the economy in general would be monumental. If the first proposed jump is made\na mammal is a legal person\nthe second jump to arguing that a legal person cannot be eaten or held “captive” for any human uses is obvious.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "250,000 animals are victims of hoarding\n149 million pet\ns\n95 million cattle\n9 billion animals are raised\nfor food\nOpening up the courts\nwould invite\nsocietal disruption\nambitions\ngo\nbeyond\nthat\nproperty status should be abolished\nimplications for food\nresearch\nanimal-based products, and the economy\nwould be monumental\nIf\na mammal is a legal person\nthe second jump to\na\nperson cannot be eaten or held “captive\nis obvious", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 8. Alignment deficit---labelling AI itself as the criminal is essential for learning and prevention of crime", "role": "system" }, { "content": "III. LABEL SMART ROBOTS AS CRIMINALS\nEven if we should impose some minimum moral standards for smart robots, one might argue that we should not label smart robots that fail to comply with those standards as criminals. Rather, it is more appropriate to treat them as defective products that fail to meet quality standards. This Part identifies three main reasons for labelling smart robots as criminals. It will also explain why each condition set out in Part I is necessary in light of those reasons and why robot criminal liability is not redundant.\nA. A Case for Imposing Criminal Liability on Robots\n1. To Censure Wrongful Robot Actions\nA key distinguishing feature of criminal law is its censuring func- tion. While tort law is (relatively) morally neutral, criminal law sends a much clearer message that a course of action is morally wrong and the person who committed that course of action is morally blameworthy.49 Criminal law’s censuring function (some- times referred to as the expressive function) manifests in at least two ways. First, imposing criminal liability on an offender helps negate the undesirable impact that an offender’s conduct may have on a community’s value system.50 Second, not imposing criminal liability on an offender may be interpreted as expressing an implicit value judgment that the offender’s conduct is permissible. This judgment, if inconsistent with the community’s actual value system, may cause confusion or even undermine the authority of the law.51 Neither of the foregoing beneficial effects of the censuring function can be adequately achieved by imposing merely civil liability on smart robots.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Even if we should impose\nmoral standards for\nrobots\none might argue that we should not label smart robots\ncriminals\nlabelling smart robots as criminals\nis necessary\nA key\nfeature of criminal law is its censuring func- tion\ncriminal law sends a much clearer message that a course of action is\nwrong and the person who committed that course of action is\nblameworthy\nimposing criminal liability\nhelps negate the undesirable impact that an offender’s conduct may have\nnot imposing criminal liability\nmay be interpreted as expressing an implicit value judgment that the offender’s conduct is permissible\nThis judgment\nif inconsistent with the community’s actual value system\nmay cause confusion or\nundermine\nthe law\nNeither of the\nbeneficial effects\ncan be\nachieved by imposing merely civil liability on\nrobots", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 8. Alignment deficit---labelling AI itself as the criminal is essential for learning and prevention of crime", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Even if we should impose\nmoral standards for\nrobots\none might argue that we should not label smart robots\ncriminals\nlabelling smart robots as criminals\nis necessary\nA key\nfeature of criminal law is its censuring func- tion\ncriminal law sends a much clearer message that a course of action is\nwrong and the person who committed that course of action is\nblameworthy\nimposing criminal liability\nhelps negate the undesirable impact that an offender’s conduct may have\nnot imposing criminal liability\nmay be interpreted as expressing an implicit value judgment that the offender’s conduct is permissible\nThis judgment\nif inconsistent with the community’s actual value system\nmay cause confusion or\nundermine\nthe law\nNeither of the\nbeneficial effects\ncan be\nachieved by imposing merely civil liability on\nrobots", "role": "user" }, { "content": "criminals\nis necessary\nmuch clearer message\nwrong\nblameworthy\nnegate\nexpressing\npermissible\nconfusion\nundermine\nthe law", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 8. Alignment deficit---labelling AI itself as the criminal is essential for learning and prevention of crime\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Even if we should impose\nmoral standards for\nrobots\none might argue that we should not label smart robots\ncriminals\nlabelling smart robots as criminals\nis necessary\nA key\nfeature of criminal law is its censuring func- tion\ncriminal law sends a much clearer message that a course of action is\nwrong and the person who committed that course of action is\nblameworthy\nimposing criminal liability\nhelps negate the undesirable impact that an offender’s conduct may have\nnot imposing criminal liability\nmay be interpreted as expressing an implicit value judgment that the offender’s conduct is permissible\nThis judgment\nif inconsistent with the community’s actual value system\nmay cause confusion or\nundermine\nthe law\nNeither of the\nbeneficial effects\ncan be\nachieved by imposing merely civil liability on\nrobots", "role": "user" }, { "content": "one might argue\nwe should not label\nrobots\ncriminals\nlabelling\nis necessary\ncriminal law sends a\nclearer message that\naction is\nwrong\nimposing criminal liability\nnegate the undesirable impact\nan offender’s conduct\nhave\nnot imposing\nliability\ninterpreted as expressing\nthat the\nconduct is permissible\nThis judgment\ncause confusion or\nundermine\nthe law", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Counter-interp---‘private sector’ encompasses for profit business", "role": "system" }, { "content": "What is the Private Sector?\nThe private sector is the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit and is not state controlled. Therefore, it encompasses all for-profit businesses that are not owned or operated by the government. Companies and corporations that are government run are part of what is known as the public sector, while charities and other nonprofit organizations are part of the voluntary sector.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The private sector is the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit and is not state controlled. Therefore, it encompasses all for-profit businesses\ncorporations\ngovernment run are part of\nthe public sector", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Counter-interp---‘private sector’ encompasses for profit business", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The private sector is the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit and is not state controlled. Therefore, it encompasses all for-profit businesses\ncorporations\ngovernment run are part of\nthe public sector", "role": "user" }, { "content": "individuals\ncompanies\nprofit\nnot state controlled\nfor-profit businesses\ngovernment run\npublic sector", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Counter-interp---‘private sector’ encompasses for profit business\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The private sector is the part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit and is not state controlled. Therefore, it encompasses all for-profit businesses\ncorporations\ngovernment run are part of\nthe public sector", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The private sector is\nrun by individuals\nfor profit and is not state controlled\nit encompasses\nfor-profit businesses", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Lack of clear line leads to excessive litigation over what justifies personhood---breaks through the legal wall and spills over.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Animal rights advocates such as Steven Wise argue that chimpanzees (and bonobos and other primates) should be recognized as “persons” entitled to their freedom. He would say the same thing about elephants and whales and dolphins. And, no doubt, he believes that petitions for habeas corpus should be available to an intelligent bird species such as the African Grey Parrot. The octopus is a highly intelligent (albeit possessed with an almost alien sort of intelligence) creature—maybe an octopus should be a person? And then what about border collies or pigs?\nYou see the problem. No judge would order a border collie freed from its owner and no judge would liberate all pigs on an Iowa hog farm. Nor would many, if any, judges be ready to order parrots freed from their owners and sent to an aviary, no matter how wonderful that change might be for the parrot.\nRichard Posner puts the problem this way: “Wise wants judges, in good common-law fashion, to move step by step, and for the first step simply to declare that chimpanzees have legal rights. But judges asked to step onto a new path of doctrinal growth want to have some idea of where the path leads, even if it would be unreasonable to insist that the destination be clearly seen. Wise gives them no idea.” (RP, 532)\nEpstein makes essentially the same point: “[If] the line between humans and chimps is no longer decisive, then some other line has to be. Perhaps it is the line between chimps and great apes, or between both and horses and cows, or between horses and cows and snails and fish. Which of these lines are decisive and why?” (RE, 22)\nRichard Cupp worries that the lack of an obvious place to draw a line will lead to excessive litigation: “If the legal wall between animals and humans is broken through, [that will open] a floodgate of expansive litigation without a meaningful standard for determining how many of the billions of animals in the world are intelligent enough to merit personhood.” (Cupp brief, 22)", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Animal rights advocates\nargue that chimpanzees\nshould be recognized as “persons”\nwould say the same thing about elephants and whales and dolphins\nhe believes that petitions for habeas corpus should be available to an intelligent bird species\nThe octopus is\nhighly intelligent\nmaybe an octopus should be a person? And then what about border collies or pigs?\nNo judge would order a border collie freed from its owner and no judge would liberate all pigs\nNor would many\njudges be ready to order parrots freed from their owners\njudges asked to step onto a new path of doctrinal growth want to have some idea of where the path leads, even if it would be unreasonable to insist that the destination be clearly seen. Wise gives them no idea\nIf] the line between humans and chimps is no longer decisive, then some other line has to be\nWhich of these lines are decisive and why\nthe lack of an obvious place to draw a line will lead to excessive litigation\nIf the legal wall between animals and humans is broken through, [that will open] a floodgate of expansive litigation without a meaningful standard for determining how many of the billions of animals in the world are intelligent enough to merit personhood", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Lack of clear line leads to excessive litigation over what justifies personhood---breaks through the legal wall and spills over.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Animal rights advocates such as Steven Wise argue that chimpanzees (and bonobos and other primates) should be recognized as “persons” entitled to their freedom. He would say the same thing about elephants and whales and dolphins. And, no doubt, he believes that petitions for habeas corpus should be available to an intelligent bird species such as the African Grey Parrot. The octopus is a highly intelligent (albeit possessed with an almost alien sort of intelligence) creature—maybe an octopus should be a person? And then what about border collies or pigs?\nYou see the problem. No judge would order a border collie freed from its owner and no judge would liberate all pigs on an Iowa hog farm. Nor would many, if any, judges be ready to order parrots freed from their owners and sent to an aviary, no matter how wonderful that change might be for the parrot.\nRichard Posner puts the problem this way: “Wise wants judges, in good common-law fashion, to move step by step, and for the first step simply to declare that chimpanzees have legal rights. But judges asked to step onto a new path of doctrinal growth want to have some idea of where the path leads, even if it would be unreasonable to insist that the destination be clearly seen. Wise gives them no idea.” (RP, 532)\nEpstein makes essentially the same point: “[If] the line between humans and chimps is no longer decisive, then some other line has to be. Perhaps it is the line between chimps and great apes, or between both and horses and cows, or between horses and cows and snails and fish. Which of these lines are decisive and why?” (RE, 22)\nRichard Cupp worries that the lack of an obvious place to draw a line will lead to excessive litigation: “If the legal wall between animals and humans is broken through, [that will open] a floodgate of expansive litigation without a meaningful standard for determining how many of the billions of animals in the world are intelligent enough to merit personhood.” (Cupp brief, 22)", "role": "user" }, { "content": "No judge\nsome idea of where the path leads\nsome other line has to be\nlack of an obvious\nline\nexcessive litigation\nlegal wall between animals and humans is broken through\nfloodgate", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Lack of clear line leads to excessive litigation over what justifies personhood---breaks through the legal wall and spills over.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Animal rights advocates\nargue that chimpanzees\nshould be recognized as “persons”\nwould say the same thing about elephants and whales and dolphins\nhe believes that petitions for habeas corpus should be available to an intelligent bird species\nThe octopus is\nhighly intelligent\nmaybe an octopus should be a person? And then what about border collies or pigs?\nNo judge would order a border collie freed from its owner and no judge would liberate all pigs\nNor would many\njudges be ready to order parrots freed from their owners\njudges asked to step onto a new path of doctrinal growth want to have some idea of where the path leads, even if it would be unreasonable to insist that the destination be clearly seen. Wise gives them no idea\nIf] the line between humans and chimps is no longer decisive, then some other line has to be\nWhich of these lines are decisive and why\nthe lack of an obvious place to draw a line will lead to excessive litigation\nIf the legal wall between animals and humans is broken through, [that will open] a floodgate of expansive litigation without a meaningful standard for determining how many of the billions of animals in the world are intelligent enough to merit personhood", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Animal rights advocates\nargue\nchimpanzees\nshould be recognized as “persons\nsame\nabout elephants\nwhales\ndolphins\nbird\noctopus\nor pigs\njudges\nwant to have some idea of where the path leads\nIf] the line between humans and chimps is no longer decisive, then some other line has to be\nthe lack of an obvious\nline will lead to excessive litigation\nIf the legal wall between animals and humans is broken through, [that will open] a floodgate", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2---Social pressures will force any state that creates legal duties for AI to also award corresponding legal rights.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "However, it is important to note that the EU report does not display favoritism towards one solution over another; it merely tries to provide a general futuristic picture of what instruments of legislation the EU can consider in attempting to regulate robots in a liability context. 151 Furthermore, the report states nothing about granting AI rights but rather only talks about their obligations.152 The problem with this argument, like that presented in the context of animals, is that the existence of obligations usually leads to the parallel existence of rights.153\nIt is hard to impose obligations on the one hand without granting rights on the other. This may lead to a slippery slope where imposing obligations on AI entities will inevitably lead to also assigning them rights. 154 For example, if an AI entity is found liable for the damage it causes, it seems only reasonable that a human can be found liable if she causes damages to the AI entity itself. 155 In the AI context, society is trying to protect humans from potential damages they may be exposed to by AI entities, and in the process, society may unintentionally reward the latter rights that it did not want them to have.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the\nreport does not display favoritism towards one solution over another\nit merely tries to provide a general futuristic picture of what instruments of legislation\nattempt\nto regulate robots in a liability context\nthe report states nothing about granting AI rights but rather only talks about their obligations.\nThe problem with this argument\nlike\nin the context of animals\nis that the existence of obligations usually leads to the parallel existence of rights\nIt is hard to impose obligations on the one hand without granting rights on the other\nThis may lead to a slippery slope where imposing obligations on AI entities will inevitably lead to also assigning them rights\nif an AI entity is found liable for the damage it causes\nit seems only reasonable that a human can be found liable if she causes damages to the AI entity itself\nIn the AI context, society is trying to protect humans from potential damages they may be exposed to by AI entities, and in the process, society may unintentionally reward the latter rights that it did not want them to have.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2---Social pressures will force any state that creates legal duties for AI to also award corresponding legal rights.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\nreport does not display favoritism towards one solution over another\nit merely tries to provide a general futuristic picture of what instruments of legislation\nattempt\nto regulate robots in a liability context\nthe report states nothing about granting AI rights but rather only talks about their obligations.\nThe problem with this argument\nlike\nin the context of animals\nis that the existence of obligations usually leads to the parallel existence of rights\nIt is hard to impose obligations on the one hand without granting rights on the other\nThis may lead to a slippery slope where imposing obligations on AI entities will inevitably lead to also assigning them rights\nif an AI entity is found liable for the damage it causes\nit seems only reasonable that a human can be found liable if she causes damages to the AI entity itself\nIn the AI context, society is trying to protect humans from potential damages they may be exposed to by AI entities, and in the process, society may unintentionally reward the latter rights that it did not want them to have.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "rights\nobligations\nThe problem with this argument\nusually leads to the parallel existence of rights\nhard\nimpose obligations\ngranting rights on the other\nslippery slope\ninevitably lead to also assigning them rights\nunintentionally reward the latter rights\ndid not want them to have.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2---Social pressures will force any state that creates legal duties for AI to also award corresponding legal rights.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\nreport does not display favoritism towards one solution over another\nit merely tries to provide a general futuristic picture of what instruments of legislation\nattempt\nto regulate robots in a liability context\nthe report states nothing about granting AI rights but rather only talks about their obligations.\nThe problem with this argument\nlike\nin the context of animals\nis that the existence of obligations usually leads to the parallel existence of rights\nIt is hard to impose obligations on the one hand without granting rights on the other\nThis may lead to a slippery slope where imposing obligations on AI entities will inevitably lead to also assigning them rights\nif an AI entity is found liable for the damage it causes\nit seems only reasonable that a human can be found liable if she causes damages to the AI entity itself\nIn the AI context, society is trying to protect humans from potential damages they may be exposed to by AI entities, and in the process, society may unintentionally reward the latter rights that it did not want them to have.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "report states nothing about granting AI rights but\nonly\nobligations\nis\nobligations\nleads to\nexistence of rights\nhard to impose obligations\nwithout\nrights\nlead to\nslippery slope\nimposing obligations\ninevitably lead to\nassigning\nrights\nsociety may unintentionally reward\nrights", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It’ll be closely controlled with safeguards.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "To address this concern we asked 11 experts in AI and Computer Science  There was an 82 percent consensus that it is not an existential threat. Here is what we found out.\nHow close are we to making AI that is more intelligent than us?\nThe AI that currently exists is called 'narrow' or 'weak' AI. It is widely used for many applications like facial recognition, self-driving cars, and internet recommendations. It is defined as 'narrow' because these systems can only learn and perform very specific tasks.\nThey often actually perform these tasks better than humans – famously,  was the first AI to beat a world chess champion in 1997 – however they cannot apply their learning to anything other than a very specific task (Deep Blue can only play chess).\nAnother type of AI is called  (AGI). This is defined as AI that mimics human intelligence, including the ability to think and apply intelligence to multiple different problems. Some people believe that AGI is inevitable and will happen imminently in the next few years.\nMatthew O'Brien, robotics engineer from the Georgia Institute of Technology , \"the long-sought goal of a 'general AI' is not on the horizon. We simply do not know how to make a general adaptable intelligence, and it's unclear how much more progress is needed to get to that point\".\n\n\nHow could a future AGI threaten humanity?\nWhilst it is not clear when or if AGI will come about, can we predict what threat they might pose to us humans? AGI learns from experience and data as opposed to being explicitly told what to do. This means that, when faced with a new situation it has not seen before, we may  how it reacts.\nDr Roman Yampolskiy, computer scientist from Louisville University also  \"no version of human control over AI is achievable\" as it is not possible for the AI to both be autonomous and controlled by humans. Not being able to control super-intelligent systems could be disastrous.\nYingxu Wang, professor of Software and Brain Sciences from Calgary University disagrees,  \"professionally designed AI systems and products are well constrained by a fundamental layer of operating systems for safeguard users' interest and wellbeing, which may not be accessed or modified by the intelligent machines themselves.\"\nDr O'Brien  \"just like with other engineered systems, anything with potentially dangerous consequences would be thoroughly tested and have multiple redundant safety checks.\"\nCould the AI we use today become a threat?\nMany of the experts agreed that AI could be a threat in the wrong hands. Dr George Montanez, AI expert from Harvey Mudd College  that \"robots and AI systems do not need to be sentient to be dangerous; they just have to be effective tools in the hands of humans who desire to hurt others. That is a threat that exists today.\"\nEven without malicious intent, today's AI can be threatening. For example,  have been discovered in algorithms that allocate health care to patients in the US.  have been found in facial recognition software used for law enforcement. These biases have wide-ranging negative impacts despite the 'narrow' ability of the AI.\nAI bias comes from the data it is trained on. In the cases of racial bias, the training data was not representative of the general population. Another example happened in  was found sending highly offensive and racist content. This was found to be because people were sending the bot offensive messages, which it learnt from.\nThe takeaway:\nThe AI that we use today is exceptionally useful for many different tasks.\nThat doesn't mean it is always positive – it is a tool which, if used maliciously or incorrectly, can have negative consequences. Despite this, it currently seems to be unlikely to become an existential threat to humanity.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There was an\n82 percent consensus\nthat it is not an existential threat.\nThe AI that currently exists is called 'narrow' or 'weak' AI\na 'general AI' is not on the horizon. We simply do not know how to make a general adaptable intelligence, and it's unclear how much more progress is needed\n\"professionally designed AI systems and products are well constrained by a fundamental layer of operating systems for safeguard users' interest and wellbeing, which may not be accessed or modified by the intelligent machines themselves.\"\n\"just like with other engineered systems, anything\nwould be thoroughly tested and have multiple redundant safety checks.\"\nit currently seems to be unlikely to become an existential threat to humanity", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It’ll be closely controlled with safeguards.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "To address this concern we asked 11 experts in AI and Computer Science  There was an 82 percent consensus that it is not an existential threat. Here is what we found out.\nHow close are we to making AI that is more intelligent than us?\nThe AI that currently exists is called 'narrow' or 'weak' AI. It is widely used for many applications like facial recognition, self-driving cars, and internet recommendations. It is defined as 'narrow' because these systems can only learn and perform very specific tasks.\nThey often actually perform these tasks better than humans – famously,  was the first AI to beat a world chess champion in 1997 – however they cannot apply their learning to anything other than a very specific task (Deep Blue can only play chess).\nAnother type of AI is called  (AGI). This is defined as AI that mimics human intelligence, including the ability to think and apply intelligence to multiple different problems. Some people believe that AGI is inevitable and will happen imminently in the next few years.\nMatthew O'Brien, robotics engineer from the Georgia Institute of Technology , \"the long-sought goal of a 'general AI' is not on the horizon. We simply do not know how to make a general adaptable intelligence, and it's unclear how much more progress is needed to get to that point\".\n\n\nHow could a future AGI threaten humanity?\nWhilst it is not clear when or if AGI will come about, can we predict what threat they might pose to us humans? AGI learns from experience and data as opposed to being explicitly told what to do. This means that, when faced with a new situation it has not seen before, we may  how it reacts.\nDr Roman Yampolskiy, computer scientist from Louisville University also  \"no version of human control over AI is achievable\" as it is not possible for the AI to both be autonomous and controlled by humans. Not being able to control super-intelligent systems could be disastrous.\nYingxu Wang, professor of Software and Brain Sciences from Calgary University disagrees,  \"professionally designed AI systems and products are well constrained by a fundamental layer of operating systems for safeguard users' interest and wellbeing, which may not be accessed or modified by the intelligent machines themselves.\"\nDr O'Brien  \"just like with other engineered systems, anything with potentially dangerous consequences would be thoroughly tested and have multiple redundant safety checks.\"\nCould the AI we use today become a threat?\nMany of the experts agreed that AI could be a threat in the wrong hands. Dr George Montanez, AI expert from Harvey Mudd College  that \"robots and AI systems do not need to be sentient to be dangerous; they just have to be effective tools in the hands of humans who desire to hurt others. That is a threat that exists today.\"\nEven without malicious intent, today's AI can be threatening. For example,  have been discovered in algorithms that allocate health care to patients in the US.  have been found in facial recognition software used for law enforcement. These biases have wide-ranging negative impacts despite the 'narrow' ability of the AI.\nAI bias comes from the data it is trained on. In the cases of racial bias, the training data was not representative of the general population. Another example happened in  was found sending highly offensive and racist content. This was found to be because people were sending the bot offensive messages, which it learnt from.\nThe takeaway:\nThe AI that we use today is exceptionally useful for many different tasks.\nThat doesn't mean it is always positive – it is a tool which, if used maliciously or incorrectly, can have negative consequences. Despite this, it currently seems to be unlikely to become an existential threat to humanity.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "82 percent consensus\nnot\nexistential threat\ncurrently\nweak\ngeneral AI\nnot\nnot know\nadaptable\nunclear\nmore progress\nAI systems\nwell constrained\nlayer\noperating systems\nsafeguard\nnot be accessed\nmodified\nother\nthoroughly tested\nredundant safety checks\nunlikely\nbe\nexistential threat", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: It’ll be closely controlled with safeguards.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "There was an\n82 percent consensus\nthat it is not an existential threat.\nThe AI that currently exists is called 'narrow' or 'weak' AI\na 'general AI' is not on the horizon. We simply do not know how to make a general adaptable intelligence, and it's unclear how much more progress is needed\n\"professionally designed AI systems and products are well constrained by a fundamental layer of operating systems for safeguard users' interest and wellbeing, which may not be accessed or modified by the intelligent machines themselves.\"\n\"just like with other engineered systems, anything\nwould be thoroughly tested and have multiple redundant safety checks.\"\nit currently seems to be unlikely to become an existential threat to humanity", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There was\nconsensus\nthat it is not a\nthreat\n'general AI' is not on\nhorizon. We\nnot know how\nand it's unclear how much\nprogress is needed\nAI\nare\nconstrained by a\nlayer of\nsystems for safeguard\nwhich may not be\nmodified by the\nmachines\nanything\nwould be\ntested and have\nredundant\nchecks.\"\nunlikely to be\na\nthreat", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It's not close to being bad.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Republicans in Congress are threatening once again to force the US to default because they lack the votes to enact their preferred fiscal vision.\nYes, it’s debt ceiling season once again. For those not following along at home, US law imposes an arbitrary limit on the amount of money the government is allowed to borrow. Historically, this was intended to make borrowing easier. Today, it is a tool for brinksmanship, with Republicans threatening to block paying the bills they already voted to incur unless GOP demands for unspecific spending cuts are met.\nRight now, the US is at the limit, and the Treasury Department is moving money around to delay a conflict until later in the year. But if the limit is not raised, the US faces a constitutional crisis: How can the president execute the laws set by Congress if those laws are contradictory? (Here’s a flow chart for your consideration.)\nThe last time a real debt ceiling face-off happened in 2011, the US had its sovereign debt rating downgraded and incurred more than a billion dollars in economic losses. So let’s set aside the hypocrisy and political posturing and ask a simpler question: Is there a debt crisis that would justify holding the economy hostage?\nAnd the answer is no. Markets are not worried about the US paying its debts, and there are no bond vigilantes appearing out of the woodwork.\nThat’s because the US is an enormously wealthy nation with a growing economy. The US has a lot of debt, about $22 trillion, equal to about an entire year’s economic production. But the US also has a lot of wealth—about $137 trillion (pdf). It’s true that interest rates are rising, but only because the Federal Reserve is pushing them up. Investors are still betting that rates will fall soon, with the interest paid on ten-year Treasury bonds lower than on government debt due in two years. That yield curve inversion reflects expectations that the Fed will cut rates during a potential recession. But even absent a downturn, the Fed isn’t likely to hike more than expected next year thanks to slowing inflation.\nPublic debt is stabilizing. How do you shrink it?\nAnd what’s the trend for federal public debt? After a huge surge driven by pandemic-driven public spending, borrowing is set to shrink as a share of the economy in the years ahead. These Congressional Budget Office forecasts are from May 2022, and don’t include changes from legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act or updated economic data, but the figures do offer a best guess at what we can expect:\nMany policymakers and economists fret that publicly-held debt approaching 100% of annual GDP is too high. The “correct” level of debt is difficult to assess; researchers think too much debt can be a drag on growth, but only if it crowds out private spending or leads to higher interest rates. The global economy, however, is in many ways dependent on a steady supply of US debt. Perhaps the biggest reason to push down current borrowing is to make sure the US has the fiscal capacity to weather the next emergency. One thing that won’t help reduce the debt, however, is a financial crisis caused by debt ceiling brinksmanship.\nDespite the Fed’s tightening, growth remains strong and unemployment is low. That’s arguably a good environment to reduce government spending after the enormous surge in pandemic aid. Spending is already falling faster, as a share of the economy, than it did after the 2008 recession.\nThere are ways to keep driving spending down (pdf), but they require delivering pain to somebody: Eliminating subsidies to everyone, from agribusiness to defense contractors, leads to lobbyists for affected industries pounding down lawmakers’ doors, while cutting benefits to children, the sick or the poor remains broadly unpopular. Tax hikes can be more palatable but can generate political repercussions among influential upper class voters.\nThe last time anyone tried to hash out a compromise on all of this—the 2011 glory days of the Bowles-Simpson commission—Republicans backed out because of proposed tax increases, and Congress wound up cutting spending 10% across the board. (Republicans reversed many of the cuts when President Donald Trump took office in 2017.)", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Is there a debt crisis that would justify holding the economy hostage?\nMarkets are not worried about the US paying its debts, and there are no bond vigilantes appearing out of the woodwork.\nthe US is an enormously wealthy nation with a growing economy\nborrowing is set to shrink as a share of the economy in the years ahead.\nThe “correct” level of debt is difficult to assess; researchers think too much debt can be a drag on growth\nThe global economy\nis\ndependent on a steady supply of US debt\ngrowth remains strong and unemployment is low\nThere are ways to keep driving spending down\nbut they require delivering pain to somebody: Eliminating subsidies to everyone\nfrom agribusiness to defense\nleads to lobbyists for affected industries pounding down lawmakers’ doors, while cutting benefits to children, the sick or the poor remains broadly unpopular\nTax hikes can be more palatable but can generate political repercussions among influential upper class voters.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It's not close to being bad.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Is there a debt crisis that would justify holding the economy hostage?\nMarkets are not worried about the US paying its debts, and there are no bond vigilantes appearing out of the woodwork.\nthe US is an enormously wealthy nation with a growing economy\nborrowing is set to shrink as a share of the economy in the years ahead.\nThe “correct” level of debt is difficult to assess; researchers think too much debt can be a drag on growth\nThe global economy\nis\ndependent on a steady supply of US debt\ngrowth remains strong and unemployment is low\nThere are ways to keep driving spending down\nbut they require delivering pain to somebody: Eliminating subsidies to everyone\nfrom agribusiness to defense\nleads to lobbyists for affected industries pounding down lawmakers’ doors, while cutting benefits to children, the sick or the poor remains broadly unpopular\nTax hikes can be more palatable but can generate political repercussions among influential upper class voters.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "debt crisis\neconomy hostage\nnot worried\nUS paying its debts\nno bond vigilantes\nwoodwork\nwealthy nation\ngrowing economy\nshrink\nshare\neconomy\nThe global economy\ndependent on a steady supply of US debt\ngrowth\nstrong\nEliminating subsidies\nagribusiness\ndefense\nremains broadly unpopular\ngenerate political repercussions", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: It's not close to being bad.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Is there a debt crisis that would justify holding the economy hostage?\nMarkets are not worried about the US paying its debts, and there are no bond vigilantes appearing out of the woodwork.\nthe US is an enormously wealthy nation with a growing economy\nborrowing is set to shrink as a share of the economy in the years ahead.\nThe “correct” level of debt is difficult to assess; researchers think too much debt can be a drag on growth\nThe global economy\nis\ndependent on a steady supply of US debt\ngrowth remains strong and unemployment is low\nThere are ways to keep driving spending down\nbut they require delivering pain to somebody: Eliminating subsidies to everyone\nfrom agribusiness to defense\nleads to lobbyists for affected industries pounding down lawmakers’ doors, while cutting benefits to children, the sick or the poor remains broadly unpopular\nTax hikes can be more palatable but can generate political repercussions among influential upper class voters.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Is there\ndebt crisis\nMarkets\nnot worried\nno bond vigilantes\nenormously wealthy nation\ngrowing economy\nborrowing\nshrink as a share of the economy\nThe global economy\ndependent\nsteady supply of US debt\ngrowth remains strong\nEliminating subsidies\nremains broadly unpopular", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: BUT, even their impact framing depends upon fundamentally liberal values of freedom and equality – their complaint is only that universalism isn’t sufficiently universal – means they’re a reinterpretation, NOT rejection of liberal humanism – totalizing rejection is reductionist AND anti-humanism is empirically just as bad if not worse – context and contingency are key", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Anderson argues that it is not an issue of extending humanity to … negatively racialised people, but of putting into question that from which such people have been excluded – that which, for liberal discourse, remains unproblematised. (2007, 199) I fear, however, that if we direct attention away from histories of humanism’s failure to deal with difference and to render that difference compatible with its fundamental universalism, and if we overlook its proponents’ failed attempts to combat dispossession, murder and oppression; if our history of race is instead understood through a critique of humanity’s conceptual separation from nature, we dilute the political potency of universalism. Historically, it was not humanism that gave rise to racial innatism, it was the specifically anti-humanist politics of settlers forging new social assemblages through relations of violence on colonial frontiers. Settler communities became established social assemblages in their own right specifically through the rejection of humanist interventions. Perhaps, as Edward Said suggested, we can learn from the implementation of humanist universalism in practice, and insist on its potential to combat racism, and perhaps we can insist on the contemporary conceptual hybridisation of human–non-human entities too, without necessarily abandoning all the precepts of humanism (Said 2004; Todorov 2002). We do not necessarily need to accord a specific value to the human, separate from and above nature, in order to make a moral and political case for a fundamental human universalism that can be wielded strategically against racial violence. Nineteenth century humanitarians’ universalism was fundamentally conditioned by their belief that British culture stood at the apex of a hierarchical order of civilisations. From the mid-nineteenth century through to the mid-twentieth century, this ethnocentrism produced what Lyotard describes as ‘the flattening of differences, or the demand for a norm (“human nature”)’, that ‘carries with it its own forms of terror’ (cited Braun 2004, 1352). The intervention of Aboriginal Protection demonstrates that humanist universalism has the potential to inflict such terror (it was the Protectorate of Aborigines Office reincarnated that was responsible, later in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, for Aboriginal Australia’s Stolen Generation, and it was the assimilationist vision of the Protectors’ equivalents in Canada that led to the abuses of the Residential Schools system). But we must not forget that humanism’s alternatives, founded upon principles of difference rather than commonality, have the potential to do the same and even worse. In the nineteenth century, Caribbean planters and then emigrant British settlers emphasised the multiplicity of the human species, the absence of any universal ‘human nature’, the incorrigibility of difference, in their upholding of biological determinism. Their assault on any notion of a fundamental commonality among human beings has disconcerting points of intersection with the radical critique of humanism today. The scientific argument of the nineteenth century that came closest to post-humanism’s insistence on the hybridity of humanity, promising to ‘close the ontological gap between human and non-human animals’ (Day 2008, 49), was the evolutionary theory of biological descent associated with Darwin, and yet this theory was adopted in Aotearoa New Zealand and other colonial sites precisely to legitimate the potential extinction of other, ‘weaker’ races in the face of British colonisation on the grounds of the natural law of a struggle for survival (Stenhouse 1999). Both the upholding and the rejection of human–nature binaries can thus result in racially oppressive actions, depending on the contingent politics of specific social assemblages. Nineteenth century colonial humanitarians, inspired as they were by an irredeemably ethnocentric and religiously exclusive form of universalism, at least combatted exterminatory settler discourses and practices at multiple sites of empire, and provided spaces on mission and protectorate stations in which indigenous peoples could be shielded to a very limited extent from dispossession and murder. They also, unintentionally, reproduced discourses of a civilising mission and of a universal humanity that could be deployed by anticolonial nationalists in other sites of empire that were never invaded to the same extent by settlers, in independence struggles from the mid-twentieth century. Finally, as Whatmore’s (2002) analysis of the Select Committee on Aborigines reveals, they provided juridical narratives that are part of the arsenal of weapons that indigenous peoples can wield in attempts to claim redress and recompense in a postcolonial world. The politics of humanism in practice, then, was riddled with contradiction, fraught with particularity and latent with varying possibilities. It could be relatively progressive and liberatory; it could be dispossessive and culturally genocidal. Within its repertoire lay potential to combat environmental and biological determinism and innatism, however, and this should not be forgotten in a rush to condemn humanism’s universalism as well as its anthropocentrism. It is in the tensions within universalism that the ongoing potential of an always provisional, self-conscious, flexible and strategic humanism – one that now recognises the continuity between the human and the non-human as well as the power-laden particularities of the male, middle class, Western human subject – resides.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Anderson argues that it is not an issue of extending humanity to\nracialised people, but\nputting into question\nliberal discourse\nI fear\nthat if we direct attention away from histories of humanism’s failure to deal with difference\nand\noverlook\nfailed attempts to combat dispossession, murder and oppression\nif\nrace is\nunderstood through a critique of humanity\nwe dilute the political potency of universalism\nHistorically, it was not humanism\nit was\nspecifically anti-humanist politics\nforging new social assemblages through relations of violence on colonial frontiers\nSettler communities became established social assemblages\nspecifically through the rejection of humanist interventions\nPerhaps\nas\nSaid suggested\nwe can learn from the implementation of humanist universalism in practice\nand insist on its potential to combat racism\nwithout\nabandoning\nthe precepts of humanism\nhuman universalism\ncan be wielded strategically against racial violence\nNineteenth century humanitarians’ universalism was\nconditioned by their belief that British culture stood at the apex of a hierarchical order of civilisations\nthis ethnocentrism produced\nthe flattening of differences\nBut we must not forget that humanism’s alternatives\nfounded upon principles of difference rather than commonality\nhave the potential to do the same and even worse\nIn the nineteenth century, Caribbean planters and\nemigrant British settlers emphasised the multiplicity of the human species\nthe absence of any universal ‘human nature’\nthe incorrigibility of difference\nin their upholding of biological determinism\nTheir assault on any notion of a fundamental commonality among human beings has disconcerting points of intersection with the radical critique of humanism today\npost-humanism\nwas adopted\nprecisely to legitimate the potential extinction of other, ‘weaker’ races in the face of British colonisation\nBoth the upholding and the rejection of human–nature binaries can\nresult in racially oppressive actions\ndepending on the contingent politics of specific social assemblages\nThe politics of humanism in practice, then, was riddled with contradiction, fraught with particularity and latent with varying possibilities\nIt could be\nprogressive and liberatory\nit could be dispossessive and culturally genocidal\nthis should not be forgotten in a rush to condemn humanism’s universalism\nIt is in the tensions within universalism that the ongoing potential of an always provisional, self-conscious, flexible and strategic humanism\nthat\nrecognises the continuity between the human and the non-human as well as the power-laden particularities of the male, middle class, Western human subject\nresides", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: BUT, even their impact framing depends upon fundamentally liberal values of freedom and equality – their complaint is only that universalism isn’t sufficiently universal – means they’re a reinterpretation, NOT rejection of liberal humanism – totalizing rejection is reductionist AND anti-humanism is empirically just as bad if not worse – context and contingency are key", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Anderson argues that it is not an issue of extending humanity to\nracialised people, but\nputting into question\nliberal discourse\nI fear\nthat if we direct attention away from histories of humanism’s failure to deal with difference\nand\noverlook\nfailed attempts to combat dispossession, murder and oppression\nif\nrace is\nunderstood through a critique of humanity\nwe dilute the political potency of universalism\nHistorically, it was not humanism\nit was\nspecifically anti-humanist politics\nforging new social assemblages through relations of violence on colonial frontiers\nSettler communities became established social assemblages\nspecifically through the rejection of humanist interventions\nPerhaps\nas\nSaid suggested\nwe can learn from the implementation of humanist universalism in practice\nand insist on its potential to combat racism\nwithout\nabandoning\nthe precepts of humanism\nhuman universalism\ncan be wielded strategically against racial violence\nNineteenth century humanitarians’ universalism was\nconditioned by their belief that British culture stood at the apex of a hierarchical order of civilisations\nthis ethnocentrism produced\nthe flattening of differences\nBut we must not forget that humanism’s alternatives\nfounded upon principles of difference rather than commonality\nhave the potential to do the same and even worse\nIn the nineteenth century, Caribbean planters and\nemigrant British settlers emphasised the multiplicity of the human species\nthe absence of any universal ‘human nature’\nthe incorrigibility of difference\nin their upholding of biological determinism\nTheir assault on any notion of a fundamental commonality among human beings has disconcerting points of intersection with the radical critique of humanism today\npost-humanism\nwas adopted\nprecisely to legitimate the potential extinction of other, ‘weaker’ races in the face of British colonisation\nBoth the upholding and the rejection of human–nature binaries can\nresult in racially oppressive actions\ndepending on the contingent politics of specific social assemblages\nThe politics of humanism in practice, then, was riddled with contradiction, fraught with particularity and latent with varying possibilities\nIt could be\nprogressive and liberatory\nit could be dispossessive and culturally genocidal\nthis should not be forgotten in a rush to condemn humanism’s universalism\nIt is in the tensions within universalism that the ongoing potential of an always provisional, self-conscious, flexible and strategic humanism\nthat\nrecognises the continuity between the human and the non-human as well as the power-laden particularities of the male, middle class, Western human subject\nresides", "role": "user" }, { "content": "we dilute the political potency of universalism\nHistorically, it was not humanism\nspecifically anti-humanist politics\nspecifically through the rejection of humanist interventions\nwe can learn from the implementation of humanist universalism in practice\nhumanism’s alternatives\nhave the potential to do the same and even worse\nthe absence of any universal ‘human nature’\nincorrigibility of difference\nupholding of biological determinism\ndisconcerting points of intersection with the radical critique of humanism today\nprecisely to legitimate the potential extinction of other, ‘weaker’ races\ndepending on the contingent politics of specific social assemblages\nthis should not be forgotten in a rush to condemn humanism’s universalism\nself-conscious, flexible and strategic humanism", "role": "assistant" } ]