Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards-SFT

like 0

[ { "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: 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\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "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": "Historically, it was not humanism\nit was\nspecifically anti-humanist politics\nforging new social assemblages through\nviolence on colonial frontiers\nSettler communities became established\nspecifically through the rejection of humanist interventions\nas\nSaid\nwe can learn from the implementation of humanist universalism in practice\nBut\nhumanism’s alternatives\nhave the potential to do the same and even worse\nCaribbean planters and\nemigrant British settlers emphasised\nthe absence of any universal ‘human nature’\nthe incorrigibility of difference\nin\nupholding\nbiological determinism\nTheir assault on\nfundamental commonality\nhas disconcerting\nintersection with the radical critique of humanism today\npost-humanism\nwas adopted\nprecisely to legitimate the potential extinction of other, ‘weaker’ races\nBoth\nupholding and\nrejection\ncan\nresult in racially oppressive actions\ndepending on the contingent politics of specific social assemblages\nThe politics of humanism\nwas riddled with contradiction\nparticularity and\nvarying possibilities\nIt could be\nprogressive and liberatory\ndispossessive and culturally genocidal\nthis should not be forgotten in a rush to condemn\nIt is in the tensions\nthat\nself-conscious, flexible and strategic humanism\nthat\nrecognises\nthe power-laden particularities of the male, middle class, Western human subject\nresides", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Resolutions are imitated globally and aggregate the voice of Congress.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "An initial puzzle concerns the moral status of the Declaration itself. If the Declaration merely embodied universal or widely held moral views, then it is not clear what the Declaration adds to this prior moral consensus. Writing down our moral views on a piece of paper should not make them any stronger. On the other hand, if the Declaration deviates from moral views, then presumably the Declaration would not have much moral force. 77\n<<FOOTNOTE 77>>\nSome scholars have argued that states might imitate other states that enjoy greater international prestige. See, e.g., Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 Duke L.J. 621, 671 (2004).\n<<FOOTNOTE 77 ENDS>>\nTo understand how norms might spread, suppose that agents have some but not full information about the state of the world; that their beliefs are independent, that is, not derived from the same sources or sources that are in some way correlated; and that they sincerely express their views through a voting process. As the size of the group increases, the probability that the majority will vote correctly approaches one. So even if each individual has only a low probability of being correct, a relatively small group will jointly reveal the correct state of the world with a probability that rapidly approaches one as the group size increases. This phenomenon is known as the Condorcet Jury Theorem.\nIn the real world, people who vote in groups do not always satisfy these conditions. They do not always vote sincerely, and they sometimes have zero rather than a little information about the issue in question. If individual members of a group pick the wrong answer more often than the right answer, then the aggregate judgment of the group will not tend towards accuracy. Nonetheless, the larger point is that when an institution (or person) expresses its views about a topic, it reveals information that others can benefit from, and the informational benefits can sometimes be dramatic. 79\nLet us distinguish two types of facts: descriptive and normative (moral). A descriptive fact is that the Armenian Genocide occurred. A moral fact is that the Armenian Genocide was wrong. No one doubts that descriptive facts exist; the case for moral facts is more complicated, but it is at least plausible that certain moral judgments are facts or otherwise have the necessary features such that the Condorcet Jury Theorem can be applied to them. 80\nIn the case of congressional resolutions, the Condorcet Jury Theorem operates at two levels. The congressional resolution aggregates the votes of members, and the congressional resolution can be treated as one vote in a larger, more informal national or global debate about a particular moral or descriptive fact. If one thinks that the members of Congress voted sincerely and had independent (or roughly independent) sources of information, then one should be more inclined to believe that the Armenian Genocide occurred (and was wrong, assuming that moral facts exist) as a result of the resolution. And if multiple legislatures, governments, or other institutions around the world issue similar resolutions or statements, and one believes that they vote sincerely and on the basis of independent sources of information, then one's inclination to believe that the genocide occurred should be strengthened. A similar point can be made about resolutions that praise military withdrawals and peace agreements, 81 condemn human rights violations, military threats, and internal meddling, 82 urge reform in foreign countries, 83 and identify domestic problems that need attention. 84", "role": "user" }, { "content": "states\nimitate other states that enjoy greater international prestige\nthe larger point is\nwhen an institution\nexpresses its views about a topic\nthe informational benefits can sometimes be dramatic\nThe congressional resolution aggregates the votes of members\nthe congressional resolution can be treated as one vote in a larger\nglobal debate about a particular moral\nfact. If one thinks\nthe members of Congress voted sincerely and had independent\nsources of information, then one should be\ninclined to believe\nthe\nmoral fact", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Resolutions are imitated globally and aggregate the voice of Congress.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "states\nimitate other states that enjoy greater international prestige\nthe larger point is\nwhen an institution\nexpresses its views about a topic\nthe informational benefits can sometimes be dramatic\nThe congressional resolution aggregates the votes of members\nthe congressional resolution can be treated as one vote in a larger\nglobal debate about a particular moral\nfact. If one thinks\nthe members of Congress voted sincerely and had independent\nsources of information, then one should be\ninclined to believe\nthe\nmoral fact", "role": "user" }, { "content": "other\ns\ngreater international prestige\nviews about a topic\nsometimes be dramatic\naggregates\none vote\nlarger\nglobal debate\nparticular moral\nfact\nvoted sincerely\nindependent\nsources of information", "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: Resolutions are imitated globally and aggregate the voice of Congress.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "An initial puzzle concerns the moral status of the Declaration itself. If the Declaration merely embodied universal or widely held moral views, then it is not clear what the Declaration adds to this prior moral consensus. Writing down our moral views on a piece of paper should not make them any stronger. On the other hand, if the Declaration deviates from moral views, then presumably the Declaration would not have much moral force. 77\n<<FOOTNOTE 77>>\nSome scholars have argued that states might imitate other states that enjoy greater international prestige. See, e.g., Ryan Goodman & Derek Jinks, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 Duke L.J. 621, 671 (2004).\n<<FOOTNOTE 77 ENDS>>\nTo understand how norms might spread, suppose that agents have some but not full information about the state of the world; that their beliefs are independent, that is, not derived from the same sources or sources that are in some way correlated; and that they sincerely express their views through a voting process. As the size of the group increases, the probability that the majority will vote correctly approaches one. So even if each individual has only a low probability of being correct, a relatively small group will jointly reveal the correct state of the world with a probability that rapidly approaches one as the group size increases. This phenomenon is known as the Condorcet Jury Theorem.\nIn the real world, people who vote in groups do not always satisfy these conditions. They do not always vote sincerely, and they sometimes have zero rather than a little information about the issue in question. If individual members of a group pick the wrong answer more often than the right answer, then the aggregate judgment of the group will not tend towards accuracy. Nonetheless, the larger point is that when an institution (or person) expresses its views about a topic, it reveals information that others can benefit from, and the informational benefits can sometimes be dramatic. 79\nLet us distinguish two types of facts: descriptive and normative (moral). A descriptive fact is that the Armenian Genocide occurred. A moral fact is that the Armenian Genocide was wrong. No one doubts that descriptive facts exist; the case for moral facts is more complicated, but it is at least plausible that certain moral judgments are facts or otherwise have the necessary features such that the Condorcet Jury Theorem can be applied to them. 80\nIn the case of congressional resolutions, the Condorcet Jury Theorem operates at two levels. The congressional resolution aggregates the votes of members, and the congressional resolution can be treated as one vote in a larger, more informal national or global debate about a particular moral or descriptive fact. If one thinks that the members of Congress voted sincerely and had independent (or roughly independent) sources of information, then one should be more inclined to believe that the Armenian Genocide occurred (and was wrong, assuming that moral facts exist) as a result of the resolution. And if multiple legislatures, governments, or other institutions around the world issue similar resolutions or statements, and one believes that they vote sincerely and on the basis of independent sources of information, then one's inclination to believe that the genocide occurred should be strengthened. A similar point can be made about resolutions that praise military withdrawals and peace agreements, 81 condemn human rights violations, military threats, and internal meddling, 82 urge reform in foreign countries, 83 and identify domestic problems that need attention. 84", "role": "user" }, { "content": "states\nimitate other\ns that enjoy great\nprestige\nthe larger point is\nwhen an institution\nexpresses\nviews about a topic\ninformational benefits can\nbe dramatic\nThe congressional resolution aggregates\nmembers\nin a larger\nglobal debate about a\nmoral\nfact. If one thinks\nCongress voted sincerely\nthen one should be\ninclined to believe\nthe\nmoral fact", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Ambiguity ensures flexibility that avoids commitment traps.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Second, the policy of calculated ambiguity provides U.S. officials with a range of options for crises and conflict that, by their nature, will require U.S. flexibility. They are neither forced to threaten or carry out nuclear first use, nor are they constrained to only consider conventional responses. U.S. officials can keep the threat of nuclear first use implicit or make it more explicit depending on what type of signal they want to send to an adversary. Should they wish to signal their resolve or deter particular behavior, they can clarify U.S. nuclear policy either privately or publicly as the United States did during the Gulf War in 1991 to some effect. Despite the concerns of some like nuclear scholar Scott Sagan, leaving open the possibility of nuclear first use does not commit a U.S. president to employ nuclear weapons first in order to reinforce some vague notion that America keeps its word. When America’s word on the subject of nuclear employment is intentionally vague and non-committal, there is little reason to fear an overriding impulse to unnecessarily employ nuclear weapons. Again, keeping U.S. options open, even extreme ones, during a crisis or conflict allows greater freedom of action to pursue de-escalatory outcomes in addition to providing more chances for nuclear deterrence to “work.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "ambiguity provides U.S. officials with a range of options for crises\nthat, by their nature, will require U.S. flexibility. They are neither forced to threaten\nnuclear first use, nor are they constrained to only consider conventional responses. U.S. officials can keep the threat of nuclear first use implicit or\nexplicit\nDespite the concerns of some\nleaving\npossibility of nuclear first use does not commit a U.S.\nto employ nuc\ns first\nto reinforce some vague notion that America keeps its word. When America’s word on the subject of nuclear employment is intentionally vague\nthere is little reason to fear\noverriding impulse to unnecessarily employ nuc\ns\nkeeping U.S. options open\nallows greater freedom of action\nproviding more chances for nuclear deterrence to “work.”", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Ambiguity ensures flexibility that avoids commitment traps.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Second, the policy of calculated ambiguity provides U.S. officials with a range of options for crises and conflict that, by their nature, will require U.S. flexibility. They are neither forced to threaten or carry out nuclear first use, nor are they constrained to only consider conventional responses. U.S. officials can keep the threat of nuclear first use implicit or make it more explicit depending on what type of signal they want to send to an adversary. Should they wish to signal their resolve or deter particular behavior, they can clarify U.S. nuclear policy either privately or publicly as the United States did during the Gulf War in 1991 to some effect. Despite the concerns of some like nuclear scholar Scott Sagan, leaving open the possibility of nuclear first use does not commit a U.S. president to employ nuclear weapons first in order to reinforce some vague notion that America keeps its word. When America’s word on the subject of nuclear employment is intentionally vague and non-committal, there is little reason to fear an overriding impulse to unnecessarily employ nuclear weapons. Again, keeping U.S. options open, even extreme ones, during a crisis or conflict allows greater freedom of action to pursue de-escalatory outcomes in addition to providing more chances for nuclear deterrence to “work.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "ambiguity\nrange of options\nnature\nflexibility\nneither forced\nfirst use\nonly\nkeep the threat\nimplicit\nexplicit\nDespite\npossibility\nfirst use\nnuc\ns\nvague notion\nkeeps its word\nintentionally vague\nlittle reason\noverriding\nunnecessarily\nnuc\ns\nopen\nfreedom of action\nmore chances\nwork", "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: Ambiguity ensures flexibility that avoids commitment traps.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "ambiguity provides U.S. officials with a range of options for crises\nthat, by their nature, will require U.S. flexibility. They are neither forced to threaten\nnuclear first use, nor are they constrained to only consider conventional responses. U.S. officials can keep the threat of nuclear first use implicit or\nexplicit\nDespite the concerns of some\nleaving\npossibility of nuclear first use does not commit a U.S.\nto employ nuc\ns first\nto reinforce some vague notion that America keeps its word. When America’s word on the subject of nuclear employment is intentionally vague\nthere is little reason to fear\noverriding impulse to unnecessarily employ nuc\ns\nkeeping U.S. options open\nallows greater freedom of action\nproviding more chances for nuclear deterrence to “work.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "ambiguity provides\nflexibility. They are neither forced to threaten\nfirst use, nor\nconstrained to only\nconventional responses\npossibility\ndoes not commit\nU.S.\nto employ nuc\ns first\nto reinforce\nvague notion\nAmerica keeps\nword\nAmerica’s word\nis intentionally vague\nlittle reason to fear\noverriding impulse to\nemploy", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The CP creates an intra-branch conflict that results in court expansion AND later overturn and enactment of the plan", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Suppose that the Federal Trade Commission decided against Intel in the high-profile monopolization case it filed in late 2009,178 and the Supreme Court reversed that decision after an appellate review. Suppose further that the Court, building on recent decisions such as Trinko, wrote a broad and aggressively non-interventionist decision in favor of Intel-rejecting a reasonableness standard and adopting in its place a test that places a thumb on the scales to favor defendants (such as the disproportionate effects or no economic sense test)-and defended its decision with a strong endorsement of the six economic arguments against monopolization enforcement set forth in Part II.B.17 By doing so, the Court would make non-price exclusionary conduct cases as difficult to prove in the lower courts as predatory pricing is today.\nSuch a decision could fuel a political controversy both within and outside the antitrust world. The extent to which it would do so depends in part on internal factors, such as the breadth of the decision and its rationale, the extent to which the Court is split, and the vehemence of any dissent. Its political salience would also depend on external factors, particularly whether political actors opposed to the outcome can convincingly tie the hypothetical decision to others in order to frame the Court as coddling monopolists and looking out for the narrow interests of big business rather than the interests of consumers or the public as a whole. 180\nIf the hypothetical pro-Intel decision did come to fruition and created such a debate, other governmental institutions might respond by undoing its result' 81-with legislation overturning it, through aggressive enforcement of state competition laws governing the conduct of dominant firms, or, after the composition of the Court changes, with a new decision limiting or overruling the Court's modification of monopolization law. [FOOTNOTE] \"81 Cf Barry Friedman, Benched: Why the Supreme Court Is Irrelevant, NEW REPUBLIC, Oct. 1, 2009, http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/benched (\"Time and again throughout history, when the Court has run afoul of popular politics and the political branches, the justices have paid a price.\"). [END FOOTNOTE] Recognizing this possibility, 82 it would take an unusually self-confident and determined Court to provoke such a controversy on its own, 83 without a strong political wind at its back.18 4 [FOOTNOTE] 183 On the other hand, the current Supreme Court may be unusually self-confident and determined. \"The current Court, the most conservative since 1937... has backtracked on the broad New Deal understanding of federal power to regulate interstate commerce and has invalidated federal statutes with something approaching abandon. .. .\" Richard Posner, 1937, 2010, NEW REPuBLIc, Feb. 17, 2010, http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/1937- 2010. But cf Barry Friedman & Dahlia Lithwick, Speeding Locomotive: Did the Roberts Court Misjudge the Public Mood on Campaign Finance Reform? SLATE, Jan. 25, 2010, http://www. slate.com/id/2242557/ (until a 2010 decision on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform, the Roberts Court did \"a remarkable job of conforming its behavior to the prevailing public mood, resisting the impulse to go too far\"). The Court's upcoming decision in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 538 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 129 S. Ct. 2859 (June 29, 2009)) may provide a window into its willingness to pursue an aggressive non-interventionist approach to antitrust in the current political environment. [END FOOTNOTE]", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Suppose that the F\nT\nC\ndecided against Intel in the high-profile monopolization case\nand the Supreme Court reversed that decision after an appellate review. Suppose further that the Court\nplaces a thumb on the scales to favor defendants\nSuch a decision could fuel a political controversy both within and outside the antitrust world. The extent to which it would\ndepends\non\nvehemence of any dissent\npolitical actors opposed\nframe the Court as coddling monopolists and looking out for the narrow interests of big business rather than the interests of consumers or the public as a whole\nIf the hypothetical pro-Intel decision did come to fruition and created such a debate, other governmental institutions might respond by undoing its result\nafter the composition of the Court changes\nTime and again throughout history, when the Court has run afoul of popular politics and the political branches, the justices have paid a price\nthe Roberts Court did \"a remarkable job of conforming its behavior to the prevailing public mood, resisting the impulse to go too far", "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 CP creates an intra-branch conflict that results in court expansion AND later overturn and enactment of the plan", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Suppose that the F\nT\nC\ndecided against Intel in the high-profile monopolization case\nand the Supreme Court reversed that decision after an appellate review. Suppose further that the Court\nplaces a thumb on the scales to favor defendants\nSuch a decision could fuel a political controversy both within and outside the antitrust world. The extent to which it would\ndepends\non\nvehemence of any dissent\npolitical actors opposed\nframe the Court as coddling monopolists and looking out for the narrow interests of big business rather than the interests of consumers or the public as a whole\nIf the hypothetical pro-Intel decision did come to fruition and created such a debate, other governmental institutions might respond by undoing its result\nafter the composition of the Court changes\nTime and again throughout history, when the Court has run afoul of popular politics and the political branches, the justices have paid a price\nthe Roberts Court did \"a remarkable job of conforming its behavior to the prevailing public mood, resisting the impulse to go too far", "role": "user" }, { "content": "F\nT\nC\ndecided against\nhigh-profile\nreversed that decision\nthumb on the scales\nfavor defendants\nfuel a political controversy\nwithin\noutside\ncoddling monopolists\nnarrow interests\nbig business\ncome to fruition\ncreated such a debate\nrespond\nundoing its result\ncomposition of the Court\nrun afoul\npopular politics\npolitical branches\njustices\npaid a price\nconform\nresisting the impulse\ntoo far", "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 CP creates an intra-branch conflict that results in court expansion AND later overturn and enactment of the plan\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Suppose that the F\nT\nC\ndecided against Intel in the high-profile monopolization case\nand the Supreme Court reversed that decision after an appellate review. Suppose further that the Court\nplaces a thumb on the scales to favor defendants\nSuch a decision could fuel a political controversy both within and outside the antitrust world. The extent to which it would\ndepends\non\nvehemence of any dissent\npolitical actors opposed\nframe the Court as coddling monopolists and looking out for the narrow interests of big business rather than the interests of consumers or the public as a whole\nIf the hypothetical pro-Intel decision did come to fruition and created such a debate, other governmental institutions might respond by undoing its result\nafter the composition of the Court changes\nTime and again throughout history, when the Court has run afoul of popular politics and the political branches, the justices have paid a price\nthe Roberts Court did \"a remarkable job of conforming its behavior to the prevailing public mood, resisting the impulse to go too far", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Suppose\nF\nT\nC\ndecided against\nin\nhigh-profile\ncase\nand\nCourt reversed that\nSuch\nfuel a\ncontroversy\noutside\nantitrust\nactors\nframe\nCourt as coddling monopolists\nlooking out for\nbig business\nIf the\ndecision\ncreated\ndebate, other\ninstitutions\nrespond by undoing its result\nafter\ncomposition of\nCourt changes\nwhen\nCourt\nrun afoul of popular politics\njustices\npaid a price\nRoberts\nconform\nto\nprevailing\nmood, resisting\nimpulse to go too far", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Russia not revisionist", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Russia is attempting to drive the enemy from its borders, demonstrating that any further encroachment would be costly. In this struggle, both Russia and the West view international law as only part of the “myth.” In fact, at issue here is the geopolitical incursion of the West, one that Russia is attempting to fend off like a weary but calculating boxer who delivers short counter punches to keep his opponent from bringing the fight in too close. Thus, Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, as well as previously in Georgia, were not a well-planned step in its alleged strategy for restoring the Soviet Union or creating a Russian world as the majority of Western analysts claim, but rather reactive counterpunches aimed at neutralizing Western encroachments on its traditional sphere of influence and threats to its security.\nThis approach of Moscow is widely popular inside the country. This is understandable. Western attempts to impose its rules on others, reject consensual solutions, and operate in contradiction with the UN Charter have already led to destabilization of many countries: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan. This is not to suggest that the ruling regimes in those countries were ideal and could not be improved. However, these political reforms should have come from within, not from without, and should have been consistent with the local political culture. As history shows, attempts to impose alien values and norms on a society that does wish to accept them usually fail. Under the best-case scenario, the alien institutes adapt to the local political culture and change beyond all recognition, thus losing their “Western” functions (like the so-called “parliaments” and “parties” in dictatorships which do not represent civil society there, but often become part of the ruling regime). Under the worst-case scenario, the swift destruction of the old system of government results in chaos and civil wars. In either case, such attempts create new conflicts and increase tension instead of improving the international situation.\nFurthermore, the United States and its allies themselves cannot be viewed as a model of free and effective society, the source of universal values, or a bastion of stability. When the international public watches unruly mobs looting shops, restaurants, and government buildings in US cities, and then high-ranking politicians and public figures call for people take a knee to honor them, it is difficult imagine that such practices will be eagerly accepted by other societies as universal standards, even if they are imposed by force. Russian ruling elites have a good understanding of this.\nAs a result, neither Russia nor China are revisionist states that deliberately undermine universal rules. They merely believe that rules introduced by others should not jeopardize their country’s sovereignty and stability. Under these circumstances, a Sino-Russian rapprochement is also quite logical. Moscow looks at Beijing in search of an alternative or a partial substitute to decreasing economic cooperation with Europe, as well as a brother in arms in its confrontation with the West. For China, Russia is also an important partner in its conflict with the West, as well as a vital source of some commodities, which it either cannot purchase elsewhere (such as armaments) or provide for in the required quantity (oil, natural gas, and other raw materials). Thus, both countries are motivated by similar pragmatic reasons. Some of them are natural for two large neighbors and are not dependent on the international situation, but others are the result of Western foreign policy strategy aimed at containing both Russia and China at the same time. The second factor hastens the process of the Sino-Russian rapprochement. \nConclusions\nRussia’s foreign policy is natural in the current international situation and will most likely continue in the near future. Even in the unlikely event of a fundamental regime change, pro-Western forces such as those seen in the 1990s type can hardly to come to power in Moscow. The existing geopolitical realities and political culture of the Russian population will not allow this to happen (Lukin 2018).\nThe world, however, needs some rules, and in order for a multipolar international system to be stable, these rules should be truly international, that is, acceptable to all major international actors. To that end, they should be formulated and adopted by a broad international consensus rather than by a single power center imposing it on others by force. We need a new International Concert, similar to the Concert of Europe which was based on a general accord among the Great Powers of 19th-century Europe following Napoleonic Wars and was created to maintain the European balance of power and the integrity of territorial boundaries. It should be based on mutual respect of each other’s interests and represent a new manifestation of the idea of peaceful coexistence, this time between multiple centers of power. According to such consensus, one is not required to agree with the ideas or policies of others or to refrain from criticizing them. However, one should respect the sovereignty of others and should not allow these differences to escalate to the level of a serious conflict. \nSooner or later, all major international actors are likely to recognize the necessity of such a Concert. However, the West’s adaptation to the new reality of a multipolar world will probably take a rather lengthy period. If this does not happen, the world will enter a difficult time of international anarchy and struggle of all against all. Historically, the majority of the mechanisms for maintaining international security were created after a bloody international conflict: the Westphalia and Vienna systems, the League of Nations, the United Nations, etc. However, the atrocities and hardships of those international conflicts were forgotten by the third or fourth generation, resulting in the outbreak of new conflicts. In the age of nuclear weapons, the next conflict could be the last. However, it is unclear if the international community would recognize this danger and take the necessary precautions to avoid it. ", "role": "user" }, { "content": ". Thus, Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, as well as previously in Georgia, were not a well-planned step in its alleged strategy for restoring the Soviet Union or creating a Russian world as the majority of Western analysts claim, but rather reactive counterpunches aimed at neutralizing Western encroachments on its traditional sphere of influence and threats to its security.\nAs a result, neither Russia nor China are revisionist states that deliberately undermine universal rules.\nThus, both countries are motivated by similar pragmatic reasons.\nThe world, however, needs some rules, and in order for a multipolar international system to be stable, these rules should be truly international, that is, acceptable to all major international actors. To that end, they should be formulated and adopted by a broad international consensus rather than by a single power center imposing it on others by force.\nSooner or later, all major international actors are likely to recognize the necessity of such a Concert. However, the West’s adaptation to the new reality of a multipolar world will probably take a rather lengthy period.", "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: Russia not revisionist\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": ". Thus, Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, as well as previously in Georgia, were not a well-planned step in its alleged strategy for restoring the Soviet Union or creating a Russian world as the majority of Western analysts claim, but rather reactive counterpunches aimed at neutralizing Western encroachments on its traditional sphere of influence and threats to its security.\nAs a result, neither Russia nor China are revisionist states that deliberately undermine universal rules.\nThus, both countries are motivated by similar pragmatic reasons.\nThe world, however, needs some rules, and in order for a multipolar international system to be stable, these rules should be truly international, that is, acceptable to all major international actors. To that end, they should be formulated and adopted by a broad international consensus rather than by a single power center imposing it on others by force.\nSooner or later, all major international actors are likely to recognize the necessity of such a Concert. However, the West’s adaptation to the new reality of a multipolar world will probably take a rather lengthy period.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Moscow’s actions in Ukraine\nwere not a well-planned step\nfor restoring the Soviet Union\nbut rather reactive counterpunches aimed at neutralizing Western encroachments\nneither Russia nor China are revisionist states that deliberately undermine universal rules\nboth\nare motivated by\npragmatic reasons\nThe world,\nneeds some rules, and\nthese rules should be truly international\nthe West’s adaptation to the new\nmultipolar world will\ntake a\nlengthy period", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Mergers are the bedrock of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector – gains in data concentration generate new products and superior asset depth withstands downswings in drug development.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Anew wave of pharmaceutical industry mergers may be on the horizon, driven in part by the $1.3 trillion in overseas cash that U.S. corporations currently hold. If policymakers  on repatriation of these funds,  that U.S. pharmaceutical companies would be flush with cash and could likely spend a meaningful portion of this windfall on mergers.\nWhile big mergers could have many impacts — on employment at home and abroad, competition, and drug prices, to name a few — one of the most important would be the effect on research and development productivity and innovation.\nAnalysts have tackled this topic before. Their work has been of mixed quality and, perhaps not surprisingly, has yielded mixed results. Pundits at the Institute for Competition Economics in Dusseldorf, Germany, for example, claimed last year in a  that previous drug company mergers had “substantially” reduced R&D and innovation, not only at the merging firms but at the merging firms’ competitors as well.\nAnother team, this one from Duke University, the University of Toronto, and Baruch College/CUNY, reached a different conclusion with its data-driven approach. The team’s review of hundreds of mergers and acquisitions from 1985 to 2009, published in , indicated that the correlation between merger and acquisition activity and FDA approvals of new drugs is “moderately positive,” both at an industry level and individual firm level.\nWho’s right? Are those in need of new lifesaving drugs harmed by consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry, or are they helped?\nWe believe that one of the main problems with much of the previous research in this area has been an over-reliance on anecdotal reporting rather than employing systematic data analysis. Even when such analysis has been done, researchers have sometimes focused on research and development spending or patent activity as benchmarks of success, as if these metrics are indicators of — or even synonymous with — actual product innovation.\nBut they aren’t necessarily the same. Spending is just an input, measured in dollars or some other currency. The same is true with patents. There is a long distance between the laboratory where new compounds are discovered and the corner drugstore where medicines are purchased.\nWe sought to address this uncertainty by focusing on research and development productivity: the amount of innovation created as measured by the value of new FDA-approved compounds reaching the pharmacy, relative to input. After all, what matters to patients is the creation of quality medicines, not how much a company spends on research and development or the number of patent applications it files.\nTo determine whether mega-mergers benefit patients, we looked at what happened to research and development productivity in all of the major mergers going back to 2001, including the last big wave in 2009 that brought together Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough, Pfizer and Wyeth, and Roche and Genentech.\nAs expected, the results varied from year to year and company to company. But our report in  showed that mergers generally appeared to drive productivity up — and did so significantly.\nWhy might this be so? While mergers undoubtedly bring disruption to research and development, they also can be catalysts for addressing the fatal flaw of most research and development enterprises: the high cost of failure.\nMore than 90 percent of pharmaceutical industry spending on research and development goes into projects that never reach the market. Any intervention that helps reduce this waste can be a real boon to productivity.\nThere are really only two ways to fix the industry’s cost-of-failure problem: 1) start with better science, so you have fewer failures; and 2) employ better decision-making about when to stop projects so you can reallocate that capital to more-promising opportunities.\nMergers can help with both of these dimensions. They bring the best combined science of the merged organizations to bear on the difficult questions of which pathways, modalities, and molecules to pursue. Mergers also trigger reviews that drive the leadership of the new company to take a fresh look at research and development. These reviews can offer the leadership an opportunity to soberly and objectively reassess its scientific hypotheses in each disease area and reevaluate the combined research and development portfolio, eliminating those projects least likely to produce advances in treatment.\nThis spring cleaning can have a cathartic effect. The combination of the two factors — fresh science and a fresh look at the portfolio — can create a renewed research and development enterprise better able to bring new medicines to patients.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Anew wave of pharmaceutical industry mergers\non the horizon\nU.S. pharmaceutical companies\nflush with cash\nbig mergers could have many impacts\nthe most important would be the effect on research and development productivity and innovation\nwith its data-driven approach\nsystematic data analysis\nshowed that mergers\ndrive productivity up — and did so significantly\nmergers\ncan be catalysts for addressing the fatal flaw of most research and development enterprises: the high cost of failure\nMergers\nbring the best combined science of the merged organizations\nMergers also trigger reviews that drive the leadership of the new company to take a fresh look at research and development\nfresh science and a fresh look at the portfolio — can create a renewed research and development enterprise\nto bring new medicines to patients", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Mergers are the bedrock of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector – gains in data concentration generate new products and superior asset depth withstands downswings in drug development.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Anew wave of pharmaceutical industry mergers\non the horizon\nU.S. pharmaceutical companies\nflush with cash\nbig mergers could have many impacts\nthe most important would be the effect on research and development productivity and innovation\nwith its data-driven approach\nsystematic data analysis\nshowed that mergers\ndrive productivity up — and did so significantly\nmergers\ncan be catalysts for addressing the fatal flaw of most research and development enterprises: the high cost of failure\nMergers\nbring the best combined science of the merged organizations\nMergers also trigger reviews that drive the leadership of the new company to take a fresh look at research and development\nfresh science and a fresh look at the portfolio — can create a renewed research and development enterprise\nto bring new medicines to patients", "role": "user" }, { "content": "pharmaceutical industry\nthe horizon\npharmaceutical companies\nwith cash\nbig mergers\nmany impacts\nmost important\nresearch and development productivity\ninnovation\nsystematic data analysis\nshowed\ndrive productivity up\nsignificantly\nmergers\ncatalysts\nresearch and development\nhigh cost\nfailure\nMergers\nbest combined science\nreviews\nfresh look\nresearch and development\nfresh science\nfresh look\nthe portfolio\nenterprise\nnew medicines", "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: Mergers are the bedrock of innovation in the pharmaceutical sector – gains in data concentration generate new products and superior asset depth withstands downswings in drug development.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Anew wave of pharmaceutical industry mergers\non the horizon\nU.S. pharmaceutical companies\nflush with cash\nbig mergers could have many impacts\nthe most important would be the effect on research and development productivity and innovation\nwith its data-driven approach\nsystematic data analysis\nshowed that mergers\ndrive productivity up — and did so significantly\nmergers\ncan be catalysts for addressing the fatal flaw of most research and development enterprises: the high cost of failure\nMergers\nbring the best combined science of the merged organizations\nMergers also trigger reviews that drive the leadership of the new company to take a fresh look at research and development\nfresh science and a fresh look at the portfolio — can create a renewed research and development enterprise\nto bring new medicines to patients", "role": "user" }, { "content": "wave of pharm\nmergers\non\nhorizon\npharma\nflush with cash\nmergers\nhave many impacts\nthe most important\neffect on r\nand d\ninnovation\ndata analysis\nshowed\nmergers\ndrive productivity\nsignificantly\nmergers\ncan be catalysts for addressing\nthe\ncost of failure\nMergers\nbring\nbest\nscience\nalso trigger reviews that\nto take a fresh look at r\nand d\nscience and a\nlook at\nportfolio\ncreate a\nenterprise\nto bring new medicines", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The plan breaks up Big Ag and prevents them from monopolizing co-operatives—that solves consolidation and labor.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nThe cooperative business model is founded on the principles of democratic governance, but it is clear that many co-ops have fallen short of this traditional principle, especially in the face of increasingly monopolized competition and supply chains throughout the economy.76 Addressing market consolidation will help co-ops compete on a more level playing field, but policymakers also need to take steps to ensure that cooperatives maintain healthy democratic functions in service of their members, if they are to maintain the tax and legal privileges of the cooperative form.\nIncreased transparency and improved decision-making processes within coops would help hold cooperative management accountable. Antitrust laws also need to allow farmers to build countervailing power within cooperatives, while also ensuring that cooperatives do not use their market power to abuse farmers. Finally, cooperative members need tools and resources to become more effective and meaningful participants in their co-ops, to empower change from within where possible.\nThe following policy proposals aim to enact these principles of cooperative reform:\n• Deconsolidate agribusiness \nFederal and state antitrust regulators should deploy bright-line rules to block mergers or undo past mergers that allowed companies to exceed a certain market share (in many sectors, the line should be 20%). They should also set overall caps on market share. Agribusinesses that exceed a fixed market share should be ordered to divest assets or lines of business to fall under the threshold, subject to a business justification defense that growth was achieved through fair means of competition.77 Cooperatives will have an easier time bargaining on behalf of their farmer members—and likewise will have less incentive to get bigger—as their supply chain adversaries are cut down to size.\n• Adopt bright-line rules to limit the horizontal mergers of cooperatives\nAntitrust regulators should develop maximum thresholds for co-op market concentration in different types of agriculture products, balancing the potential benefits of economies of scale in specific markets against the potential harms caused by the power concentrated in a monopsonist buyer or a monopoly seller. If a proposed merger between cooperatives would create one cooperative with more than a 5% share of the national raw milk market, for example, that merger should be blocked.\nThis will accomplish several objectives. More co-ops and more competition among them will make farmers less beholden to any one dominant player. Reducing the scale of cooperatives and increasing their number will also make direct, democratic farmer involvement in cooperative governance more feasible.\n• Adopt bright-line rules to limit the combination of horizontal and vertical integration of co-ops\nVertical integration in cooperatives is not harmful per se, but it can hurt farmers' interests when combined with significant horizontal integration, leaving farmers with few options for marketing their raw products. Vertically integrated co-ops with regional monopsony power are more able to exert downward price pressure on their member suppliers than vertically integrated co-ops operating in more competitive environments. If a cooperative controls more than 30% of a regional market for a given crop, then it should be prohibited from owning food processing plants that process its members’ raw products, under bright-line prosecutorial guidelines. The USDA should also be required to conduct a market analysis on a biannual basis to inform the threshold above which co- ops may have monopsony pricing power and thus cannot be vertically integrated, adjusting thresholds to meet structures of different crop markets as necessary. If co-ops grow to exceed the determined threshold, then they should be required to divest themselves of specified processing plants, to increase competition among buyers for farmers’ production.\n• Revoke the cooperative privileges of abusive businesses\nWhile the Capper-Volstead Act loosely defines cooperatives, it does make plain that cooperatives should be \"operated for the mutual benefit of members.\" If a cooperative is found to harm its members or work against their best interests, that enterprise should lose the antitrust protections and tax benefits granted to legitimate cooperatives. The USDA should publish a policy statement and file amicus briefs that affirm the \"mutual benefit of members\" requirement of Capper-Volstead and that articulate what constitutes \"mutual benefit\" to cooperative members.\n• Foster greater participation and responsiveness by promoting federated structures\nIn instances when cooperatives require some degree of national scale, cooperatives should adopt a federated structure, or a cooperative of regional cooperatives, to ensure high degrees of regional control. This will foster greater participation in governance by rank-and-file members while also avoiding the conflict of interest that sometimes exists among farmers in different regions. The USDA should promote federated co-op structures and train co-ops to maximize democratic participation.\n• Address size biases within co-ops\nSubstantial size difference between the largest and smallest members of a co-op can create power imbalances and marginalize the voices and needs of smaller members. To ensure healthy democratic functions, co-ops need either to limit the size differential between members or to adopt policies that avoid size bias. Either the largest member cannot be 10 times larger than the average member of that co-op in the preceding year, or co-ops need to undergo annual review to ensure that their decision-making processes do not have any scale biases. This could mean limiting patronage refunds (the co-op equivalent of returns on equity) or setting fees and charges proportional to member sales. All co-ops should also have a one-member, one-vote structure. Membership should also be limited to bona fide farmers and ranchers directly involved in food production. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, in his concurrence in National Broiler Marketing Association, recognized that large corporations and agribusinesses could use the cooperative form to evade antitrust laws if the law were not limited to certain producer classes.78 \n• Reform and strengthen co-op governance\nGovernance of cooperatives is a sorely neglected area of federal and state case and statutory law. We need to build new legal infrastructure that outlines what constitutes good governance for agricultural cooperatives, provides appropriate incentives for managers to follow rules, and establishes vigilant oversight and enforcement of these governance rules, to ensure that managers are carrying out their mission and prioritizing members. Specific elements of this new oversight structure should include a one-member, one-vote requirement and regular board elections (every two to four years) staggered to ensure that there is always some overlap from one year to the next in board composition, in order to preserve institutional memory. It should also include good governance practices to increase member participation, ensuring that major cooperative decisions cannot proceed without at least 50% of voters participating.\n• Facilitate greater transparency and accountability in co-op management\nAs management becomes more complex and professionalized in larger cooperatives, there is greater distance between management and members. Management may become less accountable to members, but also to other stakeholders such as employees, other suppliers, and the broader community, as profitability and business growth take precedence over other goals. To counter this tendency, co-ops with sales of more than $100 million should be required to make their annual reports publicly available and be subject to the same reporting requirements that the Securities and Exchange Commission places on publicly held corporations. This includes disclosing executive compensation. They must also provide clear explanations for any deductions taken out of producers' payments in the producers’ receipts of payment.\nThe USDA should establish a task force to interview members, board members, and management from co-ops of all sizes, to create standard information disclosure requirements for quarterly and annual reports to members. Capper-Volstead is premised on the assumption that co- ops exist to benefit their members, yet many cooperatives today make decisions that run counter to members’ interests. Co-op managers must be held to account when it comes to advancing members’ interests and following co-op rules. Civil and criminal penalties against managers should be established for malfeasance.\n• Ensure that mergers, joint ventures, and partnerships between cooperatives and investor-owned corporations are demonstrably in the interests of co-op members\nAll co-op mergers must be positively affirmed to be in the interests of farmer members; that is, strong evidence must be provided to the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and the USDA that the merger or joint venture will enhance prices and/or increase farmer ownership interest in the long run through increased efficiencies, greater market access, or additional added value. The USDA’s Cooperative Programs should develop an algorithm, formula, or scorecard to create a composite measure of the economic value that farmers receive from their co-op memberships, accounting for both return on member investment in the co-op and prices received for commodities marketed through the co-op. Similarly, co-op managers must present and make available to members an analysis of how a proposed joint venture, investment, merger, or other major change would affect producer pay and profits, before members vote on any such step. Co-op members must be able to vote on all potential mergers, joint ventures, or partnerships on a one-member, one-vote basis with a minimum voting participation of 40% of all members.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The cooperative business model is founded on the principles of democratic governance, but\nmany co-ops have fallen short of this\nin the face of increasingly monopolized competition and supply chains throughout the economy.\nAddressing market consolidation will help co-ops compete on a more level playing field,\n policymakers also need to\n ensure that cooperatives maintain healthy democratic functions in service of their members, if they are to maintain the tax and legal privileges of the cooperative form.\nAntitrust laws also need to allow farmers to build countervailing power within cooperatives, while also ensuring that cooperatives do not use their market power to abuse farmers.\n• Deconsolidate agribusiness\nFederal and state antitrust regulators should deploy bright-line rules to block mergers or undo past mergers that allowed companies to exceed a certain market share\n. They should also set overall caps on market share.\nsubject to a business justification defense that growth was achieved through fair means of competition.\nAntitrust regulators should develop maximum thresholds for co-op market concentration\nMore co-ops and more competition among them will make farmers less beholden to any one dominant player.\nVertical integration in cooperatives is not harmful per se, but it can hurt farmers' interests when combined with significant horizontal integration, leaving farmers with few options for marketing their raw products. Vertically integrated co-ops with regional monopsony power are more able to exert downward price pressure on their member suppliers\n. If a cooperative controls more than 30% of a regional market for a given crop\nit should be prohibited from owning food processing plants that process its members’ raw products\nWhile the Capper-Volstead Act loosely defines cooperatives, it does make plain that cooperatives should be \"operated for the mutual benefit of members.\" If a cooperative is found to harm its members or work against their best interests\nthat enterprise should lose the antitrust protections\n.\nIn instances when cooperatives require some degree of national scale, cooperatives should adopt a federated structure\ncooperative of regional cooperatives\nto ensure high degrees of regional control.\nSubstantial size difference between the largest and smallest members of a co-op can create power imbalances and marginalize the voices and needs of smaller members. To ensure healthy democratic functions, co-ops need either to limit the size differential between members or to adopt policies that avoid size bias. Either the largest member cannot be 10 times larger than the average member\nor co-ops need to undergo annual review to ensure\ndecision-making processes do not have\nscale biases.\nWe need to build new legal infrastructure that outlines what constitutes good governance for agricultural cooperatives\nand establishes vigilant oversight and enforcement\nto ensure that managers are\nprioritizing members.\nAs management becomes more complex and\nthere is greater distance between management and members\nManagement may become less accountable\nTo counter this\nco-ops\nshould\nmake their annual reports publicly available and be subject to the same reporting requirements that the Securities and Exchange Commission places on publicly held corporations. This includes disclosing executive compensation.\nAll co-op mergers must be positively affirmed to be in the interests of farmer members; that is, strong evidence must be provided\nthat the merger or joint venture will enhance prices and/or increase farmer ownership interest in the long run through increased efficiencies, greater market access, or additional added value. The USDA’s Cooperative Programs should develop an algorithm, formula, or scorecard to create a composite measure of the economic value that farmers receive", "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 plan breaks up Big Ag and prevents them from monopolizing co-operatives—that solves consolidation and labor.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The cooperative business model is founded on the principles of democratic governance, but\nmany co-ops have fallen short of this\nin the face of increasingly monopolized competition and supply chains throughout the economy.\nAddressing market consolidation will help co-ops compete on a more level playing field,\n policymakers also need to\n ensure that cooperatives maintain healthy democratic functions in service of their members, if they are to maintain the tax and legal privileges of the cooperative form.\nAntitrust laws also need to allow farmers to build countervailing power within cooperatives, while also ensuring that cooperatives do not use their market power to abuse farmers.\n• Deconsolidate agribusiness\nFederal and state antitrust regulators should deploy bright-line rules to block mergers or undo past mergers that allowed companies to exceed a certain market share\n. They should also set overall caps on market share.\nsubject to a business justification defense that growth was achieved through fair means of competition.\nAntitrust regulators should develop maximum thresholds for co-op market concentration\nMore co-ops and more competition among them will make farmers less beholden to any one dominant player.\nVertical integration in cooperatives is not harmful per se, but it can hurt farmers' interests when combined with significant horizontal integration, leaving farmers with few options for marketing their raw products. Vertically integrated co-ops with regional monopsony power are more able to exert downward price pressure on their member suppliers\n. If a cooperative controls more than 30% of a regional market for a given crop\nit should be prohibited from owning food processing plants that process its members’ raw products\nWhile the Capper-Volstead Act loosely defines cooperatives, it does make plain that cooperatives should be \"operated for the mutual benefit of members.\" If a cooperative is found to harm its members or work against their best interests\nthat enterprise should lose the antitrust protections\n.\nIn instances when cooperatives require some degree of national scale, cooperatives should adopt a federated structure\ncooperative of regional cooperatives\nto ensure high degrees of regional control.\nSubstantial size difference between the largest and smallest members of a co-op can create power imbalances and marginalize the voices and needs of smaller members. To ensure healthy democratic functions, co-ops need either to limit the size differential between members or to adopt policies that avoid size bias. Either the largest member cannot be 10 times larger than the average member\nor co-ops need to undergo annual review to ensure\ndecision-making processes do not have\nscale biases.\nWe need to build new legal infrastructure that outlines what constitutes good governance for agricultural cooperatives\nand establishes vigilant oversight and enforcement\nto ensure that managers are\nprioritizing members.\nAs management becomes more complex and\nthere is greater distance between management and members\nManagement may become less accountable\nTo counter this\nco-ops\nshould\nmake their annual reports publicly available and be subject to the same reporting requirements that the Securities and Exchange Commission places on publicly held corporations. This includes disclosing executive compensation.\nAll co-op mergers must be positively affirmed to be in the interests of farmer members; that is, strong evidence must be provided\nthat the merger or joint venture will enhance prices and/or increase farmer ownership interest in the long run through increased efficiencies, greater market access, or additional added value. The USDA’s Cooperative Programs should develop an algorithm, formula, or scorecard to create a composite measure of the economic value that farmers receive", "role": "user" }, { "content": "coop\nprinciples\nfallen short of this\nincreasingly monopolized competition\nmarket consolidation\ncompete\ncoop\ns\nhealthy democratic functions\ntax and legal privileges\nAntitrust laws\ncountervailing power\ncoop\ns\n• Deconsolidate agribusiness\nbright-line rules\nblock\nundo\noverall caps\nbusiness justification defense\nfair means of competition\nmaximum thresholds\nVertical integration in coop\ns\nhorizontal integration\nfew options\nVertically integrated co-ops\ndownward price pressure\nregional market for a given crop\nowning food processing plants\nCapper-Volstead\ncoop\ns\ncoop\nharm its members\nlose the antitrust protections\nrequire some degree of national scale\nfederated structure\ncooperative of regional cooperatives\nsize difference\npower imbalances\nlimit the size differential\navoid size bias\naverage member\nannual review\nscale biases\nnew legal infrastructure\ngood governance\nvigilant oversight and enforcement\ndistance between management and members\nless accountable\nannual reports\nsame reporting requirements\nS\nE\nC\nco-op mergers\ninterests of farmer members\nenhance prices\nincrease farmer ownership interest\nincreased efficiencies\ngreater market access\nadditional added value\nalgorithm, formula, or scorecard", "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 plan breaks up Big Ag and prevents them from monopolizing co-operatives—that solves consolidation and labor.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The cooperative business model is founded on the principles of democratic governance, but\nmany co-ops have fallen short of this\nin the face of increasingly monopolized competition and supply chains throughout the economy.\nAddressing market consolidation will help co-ops compete on a more level playing field,\n policymakers also need to\n ensure that cooperatives maintain healthy democratic functions in service of their members, if they are to maintain the tax and legal privileges of the cooperative form.\nAntitrust laws also need to allow farmers to build countervailing power within cooperatives, while also ensuring that cooperatives do not use their market power to abuse farmers.\n• Deconsolidate agribusiness\nFederal and state antitrust regulators should deploy bright-line rules to block mergers or undo past mergers that allowed companies to exceed a certain market share\n. They should also set overall caps on market share.\nsubject to a business justification defense that growth was achieved through fair means of competition.\nAntitrust regulators should develop maximum thresholds for co-op market concentration\nMore co-ops and more competition among them will make farmers less beholden to any one dominant player.\nVertical integration in cooperatives is not harmful per se, but it can hurt farmers' interests when combined with significant horizontal integration, leaving farmers with few options for marketing their raw products. Vertically integrated co-ops with regional monopsony power are more able to exert downward price pressure on their member suppliers\n. If a cooperative controls more than 30% of a regional market for a given crop\nit should be prohibited from owning food processing plants that process its members’ raw products\nWhile the Capper-Volstead Act loosely defines cooperatives, it does make plain that cooperatives should be \"operated for the mutual benefit of members.\" If a cooperative is found to harm its members or work against their best interests\nthat enterprise should lose the antitrust protections\n.\nIn instances when cooperatives require some degree of national scale, cooperatives should adopt a federated structure\ncooperative of regional cooperatives\nto ensure high degrees of regional control.\nSubstantial size difference between the largest and smallest members of a co-op can create power imbalances and marginalize the voices and needs of smaller members. To ensure healthy democratic functions, co-ops need either to limit the size differential between members or to adopt policies that avoid size bias. Either the largest member cannot be 10 times larger than the average member\nor co-ops need to undergo annual review to ensure\ndecision-making processes do not have\nscale biases.\nWe need to build new legal infrastructure that outlines what constitutes good governance for agricultural cooperatives\nand establishes vigilant oversight and enforcement\nto ensure that managers are\nprioritizing members.\nAs management becomes more complex and\nthere is greater distance between management and members\nManagement may become less accountable\nTo counter this\nco-ops\nshould\nmake their annual reports publicly available and be subject to the same reporting requirements that the Securities and Exchange Commission places on publicly held corporations. This includes disclosing executive compensation.\nAll co-op mergers must be positively affirmed to be in the interests of farmer members; that is, strong evidence must be provided\nthat the merger or joint venture will enhance prices and/or increase farmer ownership interest in the long run through increased efficiencies, greater market access, or additional added value. The USDA’s Cooperative Programs should develop an algorithm, formula, or scorecard to create a composite measure of the economic value that farmers receive", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Addressing\nconsolidation will help co-ops compete\n,\npolicymakers also need to\nensure that coop\ns maintain\ndemocratic functions\nto maintain\ntax and legal privileges\n.\nregulators should\nblock\nor undo\nmergers that\nexceed a certain market share\n.\nalso set overall caps\nsubject to a\njustification defense\nVertical integration in coop\ns\ncan hurt farmers'\nwhen combined with\nhorizontal integration\n.\nCapper-Volstead\nmake plain that coop\ns should\nbenefit\nmembers.\" If a coop\nharm its members\nthat enterprise should lose\nantitrust protections\n.\nsize difference between\nmembers\ncan create power imbalances\nco-ops need\nto\navoid size bias.\nWe need\nnew legal infrastructure that outlines\ngood governance\nco-ops\nshould\nmake\nannual reports\nsubject to\nreporting requirements\n.\nmergers must\nbe in the interests\nmembers; that is,\nenhance prices and/or increase\nownership interest\n.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Turns the case --- disengagement creates a nuclear industry monopoly on Congressional budgets.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "However, even if the weapons are never used, their $2 trillion price tag will undermine the civilian economy. The lives lost from inadequate heath care and pandemic responses, from inadequate housing, from polluted water, will not be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) costs. But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. first pointed out, the bombs dropped abroad eventually take their toll at home. Thus, a few months ago, Congress tacked on $40 billion to the 2023 NDAA, bringing it up to well over $800 billion more than 50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget. But they couldn’t find $5 billion for insuring universal vaccination and protection from COVID-19. In fact, the weapons budgets are a major factor in the growth of economic inequality in the U.S., since taxes from hundreds of millions of low- and middle-income Americans are transferred to contracts whose benefits are reaped by a tiny fraction of the population. Given the implicit and explicit threats traded by world leaders about the possible use of nuclear weapons, readers might doubt the availability of a path to continued negotiation. In fact, the Biden administration has insisted it is open to talks to extending the New START treaty and Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said that such negotiations are long overdue. Withdrawing from nuclear weapons treaties puts our entire nation — and the world — at increased risk of nuclear war. Counter to recent Federal Emergency Management Agency educationals, going inside or underground will not protect those in the many miles-wide blast zone. They will be quickly incinerated by the intense heat and firestorms that accompany nuclear explosions. The ensuing nuclear winter caused by ash and debris thrown into the atmosphere by the blasts will block out the sunlight for years to come and lead to the death of billions more. It will be a great human tragedy if our society allows a tiny number of greedy individuals to put our entire population at grave risk of catastrophic damage and suffering. The first step is to start voting out those elected officials who support these [dangerous] policies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "even if the weapons are never used\n$2 trillion price tag\nundermine the civilian economy\nlives lost from inadequate heath care and pandemic responses, from inadequate housing, from polluted water, will not be included in the\nNDAA) costs.\nCongress tacked on $40 billion to the 2023 NDAA, bringing it up to well over $800 billion more than 50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget.\ncouldn’t find $5 billion for insuring universal vaccination and protection from COVID-19.\nweapons budgets are a major factor in the growth of economic inequality in the U.S., since taxes from hundreds of millions of low- and middle-income Americans are transferred to contracts whose benefits are reaped by a tiny fraction of the population.\nWithdrawing from nuclear weapons treaties puts our entire nation — and the world — at increased risk of nuclear war.\nThe ensuing nuclear winter caused by ash and debris thrown into the atmosphere by the blasts will block out the sunlight for years to come and lead to the death of billions more. It will be a great human tragedy if our society allows a tiny number of greedy individuals to put our entire population at grave risk of catastrophic damage and suffering.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Turns the case --- disengagement creates a nuclear industry monopoly on Congressional budgets.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "even if the weapons are never used\n$2 trillion price tag\nundermine the civilian economy\nlives lost from inadequate heath care and pandemic responses, from inadequate housing, from polluted water, will not be included in the\nNDAA) costs.\nCongress tacked on $40 billion to the 2023 NDAA, bringing it up to well over $800 billion more than 50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget.\ncouldn’t find $5 billion for insuring universal vaccination and protection from COVID-19.\nweapons budgets are a major factor in the growth of economic inequality in the U.S., since taxes from hundreds of millions of low- and middle-income Americans are transferred to contracts whose benefits are reaped by a tiny fraction of the population.\nWithdrawing from nuclear weapons treaties puts our entire nation — and the world — at increased risk of nuclear war.\nThe ensuing nuclear winter caused by ash and debris thrown into the atmosphere by the blasts will block out the sunlight for years to come and lead to the death of billions more. It will be a great human tragedy if our society allows a tiny number of greedy individuals to put our entire population at grave risk of catastrophic damage and suffering.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "never used\ncivilian economy\ninadequate heath care\npandemic responses\ninadequate housing\npolluted water\nNDAA\n$40 billion\n50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget\n$5 billion\nuniversal vaccination\nmajor factor\neconomic inequality\ntreaties\nnuclear war\nnuclear winter\nbillions more.\ngreat human tragedy\nentire population\ncatastrophic damage\nsuffering", "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: Turns the case --- disengagement creates a nuclear industry monopoly on Congressional budgets.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "However, even if the weapons are never used, their $2 trillion price tag will undermine the civilian economy. The lives lost from inadequate heath care and pandemic responses, from inadequate housing, from polluted water, will not be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) costs. But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. first pointed out, the bombs dropped abroad eventually take their toll at home. Thus, a few months ago, Congress tacked on $40 billion to the 2023 NDAA, bringing it up to well over $800 billion more than 50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget. But they couldn’t find $5 billion for insuring universal vaccination and protection from COVID-19. In fact, the weapons budgets are a major factor in the growth of economic inequality in the U.S., since taxes from hundreds of millions of low- and middle-income Americans are transferred to contracts whose benefits are reaped by a tiny fraction of the population. Given the implicit and explicit threats traded by world leaders about the possible use of nuclear weapons, readers might doubt the availability of a path to continued negotiation. In fact, the Biden administration has insisted it is open to talks to extending the New START treaty and Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has said that such negotiations are long overdue. Withdrawing from nuclear weapons treaties puts our entire nation — and the world — at increased risk of nuclear war. Counter to recent Federal Emergency Management Agency educationals, going inside or underground will not protect those in the many miles-wide blast zone. They will be quickly incinerated by the intense heat and firestorms that accompany nuclear explosions. The ensuing nuclear winter caused by ash and debris thrown into the atmosphere by the blasts will block out the sunlight for years to come and lead to the death of billions more. It will be a great human tragedy if our society allows a tiny number of greedy individuals to put our entire population at grave risk of catastrophic damage and suffering. The first step is to start voting out those elected officials who support these [dangerous] policies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "price tag\nundermine\ncivilian economy\nlives lost from\nheath care\npandemic responses\ninadequate housing\npolluted water\nnot\nincluded in the\nNDAA\nCongress tacked on $40 billion to the 2023 NDAA\nbringing it up to well over\n50 percent of the entire congressional discretionary budget.\ncouldn’t find $5 billion for\nuniversal vaccination\nweapons budgets\nmajor factor in the growth of economic inequality\nWithdrawing from\ntreaties puts\nthe world\nat increased risk of nuclear war\nensuing nuclear winter\nlead to the death of billions more\nwill be a great\ntragedy if\nsociety allows\ngreedy individuals to put\nentire population at\nrisk of catastrophic\nsuffering", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Solves the plan.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "As such, the second formulation may square the circle. By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners,” the United States can meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration — and allies would have a harder time believing or arguing that it is — but it declares and states the reality that the United States currently possesses nuclear weapons solely — not primarily or fundamentally, but solely — to broadly deter nuclear attack on itself and its allies. And it leaves just enough ambiguity about how the United States may do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence. This formulation does not constrain US nuclear employment options, but it assures the world — adversaries and allies alike — that the United States would only ever use nuclear weapons in the most extreme of circumstances. Advocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained US nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration. And now-President Biden should deliver on the vision he sketched out first as vice president, and later as a presidential candidate: The sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners,” the United States can meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration\nbut it declares and states the reality that the United States currently possesses nuclear weapons solely\n to broadly deter nuclear attack on itself and its allies. And it leaves just enough ambiguity about how the United States may do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence. This formulation does not constrain US nuclear employment options, but it assures the world — adversaries and allies alike — that the United States would only ever use nuclear weapons in the most extreme of circumstances. Advocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained US nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration.", "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: Solves the plan.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners,” the United States can meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration\nbut it declares and states the reality that the United States currently possesses nuclear weapons solely\n to broadly deter nuclear attack on itself and its allies. And it leaves just enough ambiguity about how the United States may do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence. This formulation does not constrain US nuclear employment options, but it assures the world — adversaries and allies alike — that the United States would only ever use nuclear weapons in the most extreme of circumstances. Advocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained US nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "By declaring\nthe sole purpose of US nuc\ns is to deter nuclear attack on the U\nS\nour allies, and partners\nthe U\nS\ncan\nde-emphasize the role of nuc\ns in\nsecurity strategy without undermining\ndeterrence\nIt is not\nno-first-use\nit declares\nU\nS\npossesses nuc\ns solely\nto\ndeter nuclear attack on itself and\nallies\nit leaves\nenough ambiguity about how the U\nS\nmay do so\nagainst\nthreats to avoid eroding\ndeterrence. This\ndoes not constrain US nuc\nemployment\nbut\nassures the world\nthat the U\nS\nwould only\nuse nuc\ns in\nextreme\ncircumstances", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Perm do both – affirm abolition as dis-epistemology as a framework for Marxist movements – the net benefit is the abolition of carceral logics which are key to prevent the re-expansion of incarceration onto vulnerable populations", "role": "system" }, { "content": "While the anarchists and abolitionists exclaim “ACAB! All Cops Are Bad,” the pitiful spectacle of the carceral communists would instead amend “ACAB” with drivel saying, “it’s ACCAB, All Capitalist Cops Are Bad.” They continue, “socialist cops are not bad because they are proletarian in character and protect the proletarian State.” Such convolution is mistaken in its belief that police can somehow have a proletarian character when historically the institutions of policing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians. Not to mention that the notion that “socialist” cops protect the common good against criminal or “counterrevolutionary” elements is identical in content to bourgeois police apologia. Likely nobody would identify as a carceral communist—much like nobody would identify as a carceral feminist—but carceral communists exist. Carceral communists are the people who would defend mass incarceration and deportations under the former Soviet Union and in the current People’s Republic of China. Carceral communists merely oppose these police and prisons and wish to propose their own “people’s” police and prisons. Carceral communism is a marriage of a spectacular image of “communism” with carcerality. By “spectacular” we mean in the sense of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle where the real is substituted by reified images of the false. Meanwhile, “carcerality” is the logic of the systems of policing and incarceration. A spectacular image of communism is the images and aesthetics of “communist” States: righteous people’s armies, waving red flags, and tightly planned economies. This spectacular image of communism is not communism itself; it is merely a false image of it—a Spectacle. Ultimately, the Spectacle presents this false image of communism to obscure what communism actually means in practice—the movement to abolish the current state of things. In a certain sense, this spectacular image is already infused with carcerality from the 1917 Russian Revolution onward where communists thought that carcerality could be used for proletarian ends—abolishing only the bourgeois statesmen but retaining all other features of capitalist society. Carceral communism has so far been the main narrative of communism due to the prevalence of “communist” States from the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, other socialist States, and their aligned Western parties. After the Bolshevik coup during the Russian Revolution, the party of Lenin constituted a secret police—the Cheka—and even set up their headquarters at the Lubyanka, built on the same site as the secret police of Czarina Catherine. While the revolutionary upsurge emptied the Czar’s prisons and forced labor camps, the party of Lenin reconstituted these as gulags which Stalin would later inherit to incredibly bloody effect. Carceral communists such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin may have opposed the Czar’s police and prisons, but only for the sake for their own institutions of oppression. What Lenin and the Bolsheviks failed to realize is that communism is intrinsically a movement of proletarians struggling to abolish their class. By reconstituting “communist” police and prisons the Bolsheviks merely reproduced institutions of proletarianization and all that entailed. Bolshevik “communism” merely universalized the proletarian condition instead of its abolition and married this proletarianization with the spectacular image of communism. ACAB means “communist” cops too. Abolition means abolish “communist” police and prisons. When the question “who polices?” is posed, the abolitionist group Critical Resistance identifies right-wing and fascist militias as those who take part in policing in the so-called United States. Here in the Philippines, fascist and right-wing militias do take part in policing, but there is also a para-State entity that espouses communism while reproducing carcerality: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and their armed wing the New Peoples Army (NPA). In Nettie Wild’s 1988 documentary about the communist movement, A Rustling of Leaves: Inside the Philippine Revolution, party cadre in a guerrilla front had to deal with a young man who defected from the NPA. The young man, codenamed “Batman” in the documentary, was ordered by his uncle in a right-wing militia to defect from the NPA and provide intel for the military. Batman was eventually recaptured by the NPA. While the cadre who captured Batman made a show of giving the local community a voice in their trial of Batman in a People’s Court, the NPA headquarters found the people’s verdict unsatisfactory. In the end, NPA cadre were ultimately Batman’s judges, jury, and executioners. It mattered little that Batman was coerced into defecting; the cadre decided he should die that and was that. Then in the 90s, the CPP-NPA detained hundreds of its own cadre and systematically tortured and executed scores of them in what became known as the anti-infiltration purges. The CPP-NPA were not actually infiltrated by government agents, but by the time the cadre found out, hundreds were already executed and mass graves are still being found today. The survivors are still tagged as counter-revolutionaries by the CPP up to today. More recently, after the 2016 elections which saw the fascist Rodrigo Duterte win the presidency, the CPP-NPA wholeheartedly backed Duterte’s War on Drugs with the NPA even conducting their own drug raids in support of Duterte’s fascist agenda. In all three of these cases, it is clear that even without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions. Abolition in the Philippines will also mean abolishing the New Peoples Army alongside the Philippine National Police, the military, and paramilitary groups. Even anarchists are not immune to reproducing carcerality. There have been moments where revolutionary anarchists in the Spanish and Ukrainian Revolutions reproduced policing with militants of the Federación Anarquista Ibérica even operating a concentration camp for fascists. More recently, we have seen carcerality reproduced in radical projects like the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest. There, individuals who took it upon themselves to act as the new people’s police shot and killed Black teens. It matters not if the anarcho-concentration camp was leagues better than Stalinist gulags or if the anarcho-police are somehow better; abolition means the doing away of the anarcho-police and anarcho-prisons as well. What explains the endurance of carcerality among supposedly communist movements? Even for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural, even inevitable. In this sense, carcerality is similar to Mark Fisher’s conception of Capitalist Realism from the book by the same name. While the perspective of capitalist realism constantly propagandizes that “there is no alternative to capitalism,” capitalist realism has only been generalized with the fall of so-called actually existing socialism. In comparison, carcerality has presented itself as natural long before, to the point where Bolsheviks considered it only natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily includes police and prisons. As Fisher argued, emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable. (Captialist Realism) The truth of the matter is that carcerality is historically contingent—it did not always exist nor has it always been generalized to exist everywhere. In the Philippines, carcerality was introduced with colonialism; in the United States, it was introduced with slave patrols; in Europe it was implemented to control the working class. Carcerality has always meant the social control of the proletarianized. The term “carceral capitalism” is redundant for capitalism cannot exist without carcerality. Capitalism needs carcerality to allow the enforcement of wage-labor. This is the key contribution in “The Anarchy of Colored Girls Assembled in a Riotous Manner” by Saidiya Hartman where Black women who resisted working had to be criminalized by the State under vagrancy laws to enforce the regime of proletarianization upon them. That the Bolsheviks found nothing wrong with combining their spectacular image of communism with the false “realism” of carcerality allowed the reconstruction of bourgeois society in communist aesthetics. A society without carcerality was inconceivable for the Bolsheviks, just as it was impossible for them to imagine a world without authority and the State. Without prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology. II. For Abolition Communism In her 2014 article “Against Carceral Feminism,” the anarchist and abolitionist Victoria Law described carceral feminism as “an approach that sees increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to violence against women.”In short, carceral feminism is the idea that cops and prisons can keep women safe, yet as Victoria shows, women and queer folk are often subjected to police violence when they call on the police to help and are at times themselves incarcerated. Abolitionists understand that police and prisons do not keep women safe and instead exacerbate harm. Against carceral feminism is an abolition feminism that struggles for the abolition of policing and incarceration and argues for measures such as transformative justice that can keep women safe. In a certain sense, carceral communism is alike with carceral feminism in its unwavering belief that systems of policing and incarceration can be used benevolently; it cannot. That is to say, carceral communism is the belief that police and prisons are compatible or even necessary for communism. Just as carceral feminism is incompatible with feminism due to exacerbating violence against feminized bodies, carceral communism is wholly incompatible with a coherent vision of communism. Police and prisons cannot possibly be communized, proletarianized, decolonized, indigenized or what have you as these are features that are ultimately tied up with the development of capitalism and the modern State system and are features of capitalist society that proletarianizes. In the Philippines, as in many parts of the world, police and prisons are instruments of colonization and counter-insurgency and up to this day indigenous communities feel that prisons divest their communities of true justice. Communist measures requires the abolition of police and prisons. Communism is ultimately a movement that abolishes the current state of things, that state being the constant proletarianization that marks us as proles in this capitalist world. Because communism is the self-abolition of the proletariat, communist measures are activities and actions that attack proletarianization. Thus abolitionist steps that assault policing and incarceration are ultimately communist measures. Proletarianization is ultimately a social relation imposed by capital and is the class distinction that distinguishes the proletariat. As a social relation, proletarianization is the imposition of wage-labor, the imposition of work as a separate field of human activity, and the alienation from their fruits of production. Proletarianization is a hierarchical condition of domination where capital, the State, and the ruling class dominate the proletariat. In their 2020 booklet, Our Communities, Our Solutions: An Organizer’s Toolkit for Developing Campaigns to Abolish Policing, Critical Resistance defines policing as “a social relationship made up of a set of practices that are empowered by the state to enforce law and social control through the use of force.” As a social relation, Critical Resistance points out that policing “reinforces oppressive dynamics” such as slavery, segregation, racism and enforces compliance among criminalized communities. It is in this sense that policing is also a social relation that reinforces proletarianization. The proletarianized have always been a criminalized class. Witness the difference in policing among different classes: if a worker steals food they are sent to prison, but if bosses steal from workers usually nothing at all happens for wage-theft is a daily occurrence. It is in this way that policing forms part of proletarianization. Keeping the proles in line has always been the function of policing since it was invented. Indeed, whether in bourgeois or “communist” States, the police have always been used to combat militant proletarians. This is indeed the case in imperialized countries whether in the Philippines or in former Soviet Poland. Whether it be the Mendiola Massacre in the Philippines or the harsh suppression of Solidarność in Soviet Poland, the same regime of carcerality reigns. As radical traditions, abolition arose from the Black radical tradition while communism from the European proletarian milieu. Both abolition and communism share roots among dominated classes, one enslaved, and the other proletarianized. While anti-state communists have always had an implicitly abolitionist consciousness in their desire to eliminate policing and incarceration, the fusing of communism and abolition has rarely been articulated.To talk of an abolition communism is in a way a redundancy because regimes of policing and incarceration could not possibly exist in a society that has done away with classes and the State. After all, both abolition and communism aim to abolish the current order and establish a qualitatively different kind of life. In this way abolition and communism are alike. However, because communist politics has become imbued with carcerality for more than a century, it becomes necessary to explicitly articulate a communism that wholly rejects carceral logic. Counterpoised to carceral communism, abolition communism necessarily opposes the tradition of carcerality within communist thought and necessarily opposes the carcerality of “communist” States. To paraphrase Bobby Seale: We do not fight carcerality with carcerality; we oppose carceral capitalism not with carceral communism, but with abolition communism. Mao once said that “without a People’s army, the people have nothing,” yet counterbalancing the New Peoples Army against the Philippine National Police does nothing for liberation if both institutions reproduce carcerality. Qualitatively new forms of social relations that break with carcerality is needed to definitively combat policing and incarceration. What was once presented as necessary and inevitable must be shown to be mere contingency, and what was once impossible must be shown to be attainable. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "While the\nabolitionists exclaim “ACAB! All Cops Are Bad,” the pitiful spectacle of the carceral communists would instead amend “ACAB” with drivel saying, “it’s ACCAB, All Capitalist Cops Are Bad.” They continue, “socialist cops are not bad because they are proletarian in character and protect the proletarian State.” Such convolution is mistaken in its belief that police can somehow have a proletarian character when historically the institutions of policing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians. Not to mention that the notion that “socialist” cops protect the common good against criminal or “counterrevolutionary” elements is identical in content to bourgeois police apologia.\nCarceral communists merely oppose these police and prisons and wish to propose their own “people’s” police and prisons.\npresents this false image of communism to obscure what communism actually means in practice—the movement to abolish the current state of things. In a certain sense, this spectacular image is already infused with carcerality from the 1917 Russian Revolution onward where communists thought that carcerality could be used for proletarian ends—abolishing only the bourgeois statesmen but retaining all other features of capitalist society. Carceral communism has so far been the main narrative of communism due to the prevalence of “communist” States from the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, other socialist States, and their aligned Western parties\nCarceral communists such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin may have opposed the Czar’s police and prisons, but only for the sake for their own institutions of oppression.\ncommunism is intrinsically a movement of proletarians struggling to abolish their class\nreconstituting “communist” police and prisons\nmerely reproduced institutions of proletarianization and all that entailed\nACAB means “communist” cops too. Abolition means abolish “communist” police and prisons.\n“who polices?”\nfascist and right-wing militias do take part in policing, but there is also a para-State entity that espouses communism while reproducing carcerality: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and their armed wing the New Peoples Army (NPA).\na young man\ncodenamed “Batman\nwas ordered by his uncle in a right-wing militia to defect from the NPA and provide intel for the military\nwas eventually recaptured by the NPA\nIt mattered little that Batman was coerced into defecting; the cadre decided he should die that and was that.\nthe CPP-NPA detained hundreds of its own cadre and systematically tortured and executed scores of them in\nanti-infiltration purges\nThe CPP-NPA were not actually infiltrated by government agents, but by the time the cadre found out, hundreds were already executed and mass graves are still being found today\nsurvivors are still tagged as counter-revolutionaries\ntoday\nthe CPP-NPA wholeheartedly backed Duterte’s War on Drugs with the NPA even conducting their own drug raids in support of Duterte’s fascist agenda\neven without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions\nwe have seen carcerality reproduced in radical projects like the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest.\nindividuals who took it upon themselves to act as the new people’s police shot and killed Black teens. It matters not if the anarcho-concentration camp was leagues better than Stalinist gulags or if the anarcho-police are somehow better; abolition means the doing away of the anarcho-police and anarcho-prisons as well.\nEven for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural,\ncarcerality has presented itself as natural long before, to the point where Bolsheviks considered it only natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily includes police and prisons.\nemancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable.\ncarcerality is historically contingent—it did not always exist nor has it always been generalized to exist everywhere\nIn the Philippines, carcerality was introduced with colonialism; in the United States, it was introduced with slave patrols; in Europe it was implemented to control the working class. Carcerality has always meant the social control of the proletarianized. The term “carceral capitalism” is redundant for capitalism cannot exist without carcerality. Capitalism needs carcerality to allow the enforcement of wage-labor.\nWithout prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology.\nTo talk of an abolition communism is\na redundancy because regimes of policing and incarceration could not possibly exist in a society that has done away with classes and the State\n, both abolition and communism aim to abolish the current order and establish a qualitatively different kind of life.\nbecause communist politics has become imbued with carcerality for more than a century, it becomes necessary to explicitly articulate a communism that wholly rejects carceral logic\nabolition communism necessarily opposes the tradition of carcerality within communist thought and necessarily opposes the carcerality of “communist” States.\nWe do not fight carcerality with carcerality; we oppose carceral capitalism not with carceral communism, but with abolition communism.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Perm do both – affirm abolition as dis-epistemology as a framework for Marxist movements – the net benefit is the abolition of carceral logics which are key to prevent the re-expansion of incarceration onto vulnerable populations", "role": "system" }, { "content": "While the anarchists and abolitionists exclaim “ACAB! All Cops Are Bad,” the pitiful spectacle of the carceral communists would instead amend “ACAB” with drivel saying, “it’s ACCAB, All Capitalist Cops Are Bad.” They continue, “socialist cops are not bad because they are proletarian in character and protect the proletarian State.” Such convolution is mistaken in its belief that police can somehow have a proletarian character when historically the institutions of policing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians. Not to mention that the notion that “socialist” cops protect the common good against criminal or “counterrevolutionary” elements is identical in content to bourgeois police apologia. Likely nobody would identify as a carceral communist—much like nobody would identify as a carceral feminist—but carceral communists exist. Carceral communists are the people who would defend mass incarceration and deportations under the former Soviet Union and in the current People’s Republic of China. Carceral communists merely oppose these police and prisons and wish to propose their own “people’s” police and prisons. Carceral communism is a marriage of a spectacular image of “communism” with carcerality. By “spectacular” we mean in the sense of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle where the real is substituted by reified images of the false. Meanwhile, “carcerality” is the logic of the systems of policing and incarceration. A spectacular image of communism is the images and aesthetics of “communist” States: righteous people’s armies, waving red flags, and tightly planned economies. This spectacular image of communism is not communism itself; it is merely a false image of it—a Spectacle. Ultimately, the Spectacle presents this false image of communism to obscure what communism actually means in practice—the movement to abolish the current state of things. In a certain sense, this spectacular image is already infused with carcerality from the 1917 Russian Revolution onward where communists thought that carcerality could be used for proletarian ends—abolishing only the bourgeois statesmen but retaining all other features of capitalist society. Carceral communism has so far been the main narrative of communism due to the prevalence of “communist” States from the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, other socialist States, and their aligned Western parties. After the Bolshevik coup during the Russian Revolution, the party of Lenin constituted a secret police—the Cheka—and even set up their headquarters at the Lubyanka, built on the same site as the secret police of Czarina Catherine. While the revolutionary upsurge emptied the Czar’s prisons and forced labor camps, the party of Lenin reconstituted these as gulags which Stalin would later inherit to incredibly bloody effect. Carceral communists such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin may have opposed the Czar’s police and prisons, but only for the sake for their own institutions of oppression. What Lenin and the Bolsheviks failed to realize is that communism is intrinsically a movement of proletarians struggling to abolish their class. By reconstituting “communist” police and prisons the Bolsheviks merely reproduced institutions of proletarianization and all that entailed. Bolshevik “communism” merely universalized the proletarian condition instead of its abolition and married this proletarianization with the spectacular image of communism. ACAB means “communist” cops too. Abolition means abolish “communist” police and prisons. When the question “who polices?” is posed, the abolitionist group Critical Resistance identifies right-wing and fascist militias as those who take part in policing in the so-called United States. Here in the Philippines, fascist and right-wing militias do take part in policing, but there is also a para-State entity that espouses communism while reproducing carcerality: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and their armed wing the New Peoples Army (NPA). In Nettie Wild’s 1988 documentary about the communist movement, A Rustling of Leaves: Inside the Philippine Revolution, party cadre in a guerrilla front had to deal with a young man who defected from the NPA. The young man, codenamed “Batman” in the documentary, was ordered by his uncle in a right-wing militia to defect from the NPA and provide intel for the military. Batman was eventually recaptured by the NPA. While the cadre who captured Batman made a show of giving the local community a voice in their trial of Batman in a People’s Court, the NPA headquarters found the people’s verdict unsatisfactory. In the end, NPA cadre were ultimately Batman’s judges, jury, and executioners. It mattered little that Batman was coerced into defecting; the cadre decided he should die that and was that. Then in the 90s, the CPP-NPA detained hundreds of its own cadre and systematically tortured and executed scores of them in what became known as the anti-infiltration purges. The CPP-NPA were not actually infiltrated by government agents, but by the time the cadre found out, hundreds were already executed and mass graves are still being found today. The survivors are still tagged as counter-revolutionaries by the CPP up to today. More recently, after the 2016 elections which saw the fascist Rodrigo Duterte win the presidency, the CPP-NPA wholeheartedly backed Duterte’s War on Drugs with the NPA even conducting their own drug raids in support of Duterte’s fascist agenda. In all three of these cases, it is clear that even without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions. Abolition in the Philippines will also mean abolishing the New Peoples Army alongside the Philippine National Police, the military, and paramilitary groups. Even anarchists are not immune to reproducing carcerality. There have been moments where revolutionary anarchists in the Spanish and Ukrainian Revolutions reproduced policing with militants of the Federación Anarquista Ibérica even operating a concentration camp for fascists. More recently, we have seen carcerality reproduced in radical projects like the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest. There, individuals who took it upon themselves to act as the new people’s police shot and killed Black teens. It matters not if the anarcho-concentration camp was leagues better than Stalinist gulags or if the anarcho-police are somehow better; abolition means the doing away of the anarcho-police and anarcho-prisons as well. What explains the endurance of carcerality among supposedly communist movements? Even for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural, even inevitable. In this sense, carcerality is similar to Mark Fisher’s conception of Capitalist Realism from the book by the same name. While the perspective of capitalist realism constantly propagandizes that “there is no alternative to capitalism,” capitalist realism has only been generalized with the fall of so-called actually existing socialism. In comparison, carcerality has presented itself as natural long before, to the point where Bolsheviks considered it only natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily includes police and prisons. As Fisher argued, emancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable. (Captialist Realism) The truth of the matter is that carcerality is historically contingent—it did not always exist nor has it always been generalized to exist everywhere. In the Philippines, carcerality was introduced with colonialism; in the United States, it was introduced with slave patrols; in Europe it was implemented to control the working class. Carcerality has always meant the social control of the proletarianized. The term “carceral capitalism” is redundant for capitalism cannot exist without carcerality. Capitalism needs carcerality to allow the enforcement of wage-labor. This is the key contribution in “The Anarchy of Colored Girls Assembled in a Riotous Manner” by Saidiya Hartman where Black women who resisted working had to be criminalized by the State under vagrancy laws to enforce the regime of proletarianization upon them. That the Bolsheviks found nothing wrong with combining their spectacular image of communism with the false “realism” of carcerality allowed the reconstruction of bourgeois society in communist aesthetics. A society without carcerality was inconceivable for the Bolsheviks, just as it was impossible for them to imagine a world without authority and the State. Without prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology. II. For Abolition Communism In her 2014 article “Against Carceral Feminism,” the anarchist and abolitionist Victoria Law described carceral feminism as “an approach that sees increased policing, prosecution, and imprisonment as the primary solution to violence against women.”In short, carceral feminism is the idea that cops and prisons can keep women safe, yet as Victoria shows, women and queer folk are often subjected to police violence when they call on the police to help and are at times themselves incarcerated. Abolitionists understand that police and prisons do not keep women safe and instead exacerbate harm. Against carceral feminism is an abolition feminism that struggles for the abolition of policing and incarceration and argues for measures such as transformative justice that can keep women safe. In a certain sense, carceral communism is alike with carceral feminism in its unwavering belief that systems of policing and incarceration can be used benevolently; it cannot. That is to say, carceral communism is the belief that police and prisons are compatible or even necessary for communism. Just as carceral feminism is incompatible with feminism due to exacerbating violence against feminized bodies, carceral communism is wholly incompatible with a coherent vision of communism. Police and prisons cannot possibly be communized, proletarianized, decolonized, indigenized or what have you as these are features that are ultimately tied up with the development of capitalism and the modern State system and are features of capitalist society that proletarianizes. In the Philippines, as in many parts of the world, police and prisons are instruments of colonization and counter-insurgency and up to this day indigenous communities feel that prisons divest their communities of true justice. Communist measures requires the abolition of police and prisons. Communism is ultimately a movement that abolishes the current state of things, that state being the constant proletarianization that marks us as proles in this capitalist world. Because communism is the self-abolition of the proletariat, communist measures are activities and actions that attack proletarianization. Thus abolitionist steps that assault policing and incarceration are ultimately communist measures. Proletarianization is ultimately a social relation imposed by capital and is the class distinction that distinguishes the proletariat. As a social relation, proletarianization is the imposition of wage-labor, the imposition of work as a separate field of human activity, and the alienation from their fruits of production. Proletarianization is a hierarchical condition of domination where capital, the State, and the ruling class dominate the proletariat. In their 2020 booklet, Our Communities, Our Solutions: An Organizer’s Toolkit for Developing Campaigns to Abolish Policing, Critical Resistance defines policing as “a social relationship made up of a set of practices that are empowered by the state to enforce law and social control through the use of force.” As a social relation, Critical Resistance points out that policing “reinforces oppressive dynamics” such as slavery, segregation, racism and enforces compliance among criminalized communities. It is in this sense that policing is also a social relation that reinforces proletarianization. The proletarianized have always been a criminalized class. Witness the difference in policing among different classes: if a worker steals food they are sent to prison, but if bosses steal from workers usually nothing at all happens for wage-theft is a daily occurrence. It is in this way that policing forms part of proletarianization. Keeping the proles in line has always been the function of policing since it was invented. Indeed, whether in bourgeois or “communist” States, the police have always been used to combat militant proletarians. This is indeed the case in imperialized countries whether in the Philippines or in former Soviet Poland. Whether it be the Mendiola Massacre in the Philippines or the harsh suppression of Solidarność in Soviet Poland, the same regime of carcerality reigns. As radical traditions, abolition arose from the Black radical tradition while communism from the European proletarian milieu. Both abolition and communism share roots among dominated classes, one enslaved, and the other proletarianized. While anti-state communists have always had an implicitly abolitionist consciousness in their desire to eliminate policing and incarceration, the fusing of communism and abolition has rarely been articulated.To talk of an abolition communism is in a way a redundancy because regimes of policing and incarceration could not possibly exist in a society that has done away with classes and the State. After all, both abolition and communism aim to abolish the current order and establish a qualitatively different kind of life. In this way abolition and communism are alike. However, because communist politics has become imbued with carcerality for more than a century, it becomes necessary to explicitly articulate a communism that wholly rejects carceral logic. Counterpoised to carceral communism, abolition communism necessarily opposes the tradition of carcerality within communist thought and necessarily opposes the carcerality of “communist” States. To paraphrase Bobby Seale: We do not fight carcerality with carcerality; we oppose carceral capitalism not with carceral communism, but with abolition communism. Mao once said that “without a People’s army, the people have nothing,” yet counterbalancing the New Peoples Army against the Philippine National Police does nothing for liberation if both institutions reproduce carcerality. Qualitatively new forms of social relations that break with carcerality is needed to definitively combat policing and incarceration. What was once presented as necessary and inevitable must be shown to be mere contingency, and what was once impossible must be shown to be attainable. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Such convolution is mistaken in its belief that police can somehow have a proletarian character when historically the institutions of policing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians. Not to mention that the notion that “socialist” cops protect the common good against criminal or “counterrevolutionary” elements is identical in content to bourgeois police apologia.\nthis spectacular image is already infused with carcerality\n“who polices?”\nIt mattered little that Batman was coerced into defecting; the cadre decided he should die that and was that.\nnot actually infiltrated\nhundreds were already executed and mass graves are still being found today\neven without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions\nEven for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural,\nWithout prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology.\nWe do not fight carcerality with carcerality; we oppose carceral capitalism not with carceral communism, but with abolition communism.", "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: Perm do both – affirm abolition as dis-epistemology as a framework for Marxist movements – the net benefit is the abolition of carceral logics which are key to prevent the re-expansion of incarceration onto vulnerable populations\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "While the\nabolitionists exclaim “ACAB! All Cops Are Bad,” the pitiful spectacle of the carceral communists would instead amend “ACAB” with drivel saying, “it’s ACCAB, All Capitalist Cops Are Bad.” They continue, “socialist cops are not bad because they are proletarian in character and protect the proletarian State.” Such convolution is mistaken in its belief that police can somehow have a proletarian character when historically the institutions of policing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians. Not to mention that the notion that “socialist” cops protect the common good against criminal or “counterrevolutionary” elements is identical in content to bourgeois police apologia.\nCarceral communists merely oppose these police and prisons and wish to propose their own “people’s” police and prisons.\npresents this false image of communism to obscure what communism actually means in practice—the movement to abolish the current state of things. In a certain sense, this spectacular image is already infused with carcerality from the 1917 Russian Revolution onward where communists thought that carcerality could be used for proletarian ends—abolishing only the bourgeois statesmen but retaining all other features of capitalist society. Carceral communism has so far been the main narrative of communism due to the prevalence of “communist” States from the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, other socialist States, and their aligned Western parties\nCarceral communists such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin may have opposed the Czar’s police and prisons, but only for the sake for their own institutions of oppression.\ncommunism is intrinsically a movement of proletarians struggling to abolish their class\nreconstituting “communist” police and prisons\nmerely reproduced institutions of proletarianization and all that entailed\nACAB means “communist” cops too. Abolition means abolish “communist” police and prisons.\n“who polices?”\nfascist and right-wing militias do take part in policing, but there is also a para-State entity that espouses communism while reproducing carcerality: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and their armed wing the New Peoples Army (NPA).\na young man\ncodenamed “Batman\nwas ordered by his uncle in a right-wing militia to defect from the NPA and provide intel for the military\nwas eventually recaptured by the NPA\nIt mattered little that Batman was coerced into defecting; the cadre decided he should die that and was that.\nthe CPP-NPA detained hundreds of its own cadre and systematically tortured and executed scores of them in\nanti-infiltration purges\nThe CPP-NPA were not actually infiltrated by government agents, but by the time the cadre found out, hundreds were already executed and mass graves are still being found today\nsurvivors are still tagged as counter-revolutionaries\ntoday\nthe CPP-NPA wholeheartedly backed Duterte’s War on Drugs with the NPA even conducting their own drug raids in support of Duterte’s fascist agenda\neven without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions\nwe have seen carcerality reproduced in radical projects like the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest.\nindividuals who took it upon themselves to act as the new people’s police shot and killed Black teens. It matters not if the anarcho-concentration camp was leagues better than Stalinist gulags or if the anarcho-police are somehow better; abolition means the doing away of the anarcho-police and anarcho-prisons as well.\nEven for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural,\ncarcerality has presented itself as natural long before, to the point where Bolsheviks considered it only natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily includes police and prisons.\nemancipatory politics must always destroy the appearance of a ‘natural order’, must reveal what is presented as necessary and inevitable to be a mere contingency, just as it must make what was previously deemed to be impossible seem attainable.\ncarcerality is historically contingent—it did not always exist nor has it always been generalized to exist everywhere\nIn the Philippines, carcerality was introduced with colonialism; in the United States, it was introduced with slave patrols; in Europe it was implemented to control the working class. Carcerality has always meant the social control of the proletarianized. The term “carceral capitalism” is redundant for capitalism cannot exist without carcerality. Capitalism needs carcerality to allow the enforcement of wage-labor.\nWithout prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology.\nTo talk of an abolition communism is\na redundancy because regimes of policing and incarceration could not possibly exist in a society that has done away with classes and the State\n, both abolition and communism aim to abolish the current order and establish a qualitatively different kind of life.\nbecause communist politics has become imbued with carcerality for more than a century, it becomes necessary to explicitly articulate a communism that wholly rejects carceral logic\nabolition communism necessarily opposes the tradition of carcerality within communist thought and necessarily opposes the carcerality of “communist” States.\nWe do not fight carcerality with carcerality; we oppose carceral capitalism not with carceral communism, but with abolition communism.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "socialist cops are not bad\nis mistaken\nthat police can\nhave a proletarian character when\npolicing and incarceration were established to cement the rule of capital over proletarians\nalready infused with carcerality\n“who polices?”\nthe\nCPP\nand\nNPA\na young man\nBatman\nwas ordered\nto defect\nand\nwas\nrecaptured\nIt mattered little that Batman was coerced\nthe cadre decided he should die that and was that.\nthe CPP-NPA\nsystematically tortured and executed scores of them in\nanti-infiltration purges\nThe CPP-NPA were not actually infiltrated\nbut\nhundreds were\nexecuted and mass graves are still being found today\nbacked Duterte’s War on Drugs\neven without taking State power, communist movements can reproduce carceral logic to lethal conclusions\nin\nthe Capitol Hill Occupied Protest\nindividuals who took it upon themselves to act as the new people’s police shot and killed Black teens\nEven for radicals, the ideology of police and prisons presents itself as natural,\nCarcerality has always meant the social control of the proletarianized\nThe term “carceral capitalism” is redundant for capitalism cannot exist without carcerality\nWithout prison and police abolition, communists will never transcend capitalist ideology.\nboth abolition and communism aim to abolish the current order and establish a qualitatively different kind of life\nWe\nfight carcerality\nwe oppose carceral capitalism\nwith abolition communism.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Counterplan solves the AFF while maintaining primary and extended deterrence:", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Consider the three following alternative sole purpose declarations: Sole Purpose 1: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter — and, if necessary, to retaliate against — a nuclear attack against the United States and its allies. Sole Purpose 2: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks against the United States and its allies. Sole Purpose 3: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter significant strategic attacks, including nuclear attacks, against the United States and its allies. Each of these formulations stipulates what the “sole purpose” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal might be, but the practical consequences of the adoption of each declaration by the United States are very different. The closest to a no-first-use policy would be option 1 — the phrasing largely adopted by Biden before entering office. The addition of the embedded clause — “and, if necessary, retaliating against” — clearly stipulates that nuclear weapons are not envisioned for first use, perhaps not even to preempt imminent nuclear use against the United States or its allies. The first statement may, however, still allow for the possibility of launching-under-attack — a scenario where the United States would release nuclear weapons before any incoming warheads detonated, but upon confirmation with a high degree of confidence that an adversary had initiated a nuclear launch against American or allied soil. (While practicable with China and Russia, short missile flight times to South Korean and Japanese soil from North Korea may render this impractical in Northeast Asia.) But by including a clause about possessing nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of retaliating following nuclear use against the United States or its allies, option 1 turns entirely on litigating what point in the process of an adversary launching nuclear weapons constitutes “use” — a very narrow set of circumstances to begin with. The second sole purpose statement, by omitting this embedded clause about retaliation however, leaves substantially more room for U.S. allies to be reassured, leaving the “chance” of first use on the table. Take a realistic example to illustrate the distinction between the first and second statements, relevant especially to U.S. allies in Seoul and Tokyo. Imagine that North Korea has begun to disperse nuclear warheads to ballistic missile operating areas. U.S. and allied intelligence believe North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is in the early stages of a preemptive nuclear attack. This attack may be the result of a miscalculation by North Korea, or it may be a response to an allied attempt to attack or invade. The specifics of why Kim is readying nuclear missiles are unimportant. Under existing U.S. nuclear policy, the fact of North Korean launch preparations may not trigger the use of nuclear weapons, but U.S. allies could reasonably expect that a U.S. president would at the very least contemplate the preemptive use of nuclear weapons to maximize the probability that North Korean missiles are successfully destroyed. The United States could consider employing precision-guided conventional munitions, but the task of finding, fixing, and finishing North Korean missile launchers may be too difficult and risky. An American president consulting with military advisors may be told that the prospects for disarming North Korea are significantly higher if he or she uses nuclear weapons to do so, rather than conventional weapons. In this scenario, the first statement leaves little wiggle room. Under a strict interpretation, only after the launch of the first North Korean nuclear warhead — or even more strictly, after the first detonation — on allied soil could the United States then contemplate nuclear use. Such a scenario, along with concerns about China’s growing conventional missile arsenal, is largely why Tokyo has strongly opposed sole purpose in the past. The second sole purpose formulation, however, leaves the matter open. If the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks, then it follows that the president could threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary from following through on preparations to launch nuclear weapons. Critically, unlike a no-first-use pledge and sole purpose option 1, the second sole purpose formulation does not make any statement about the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. Instead, it merely describes the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, leaving a wider scope of employment, including first use, if it were in the service of “deterring nuclear attacks” against the United States or its allies. Instead of constraining use, option 2 explains to allies and adversaries alike that the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence, which may include threats of preemption or even broader use options that seek to deter nuclear use. It is these latter possibilities that distinguish the second sole purpose statement from the first. The third sole purpose formulation, meanwhile, expands the bounds further, allowing a U.S. president to deploy nuclear weapons against “significant strategic attacks,” which may include the use of biological or chemical weapons, or even a major conventional attack. This option is, essentially, status quo U.S. nuclear policy reformulated in the language of sole purpose and, indeed, includes multiple expansive purposes for American nuclear weapons. No sole purpose declaration — nor a no-first-use declaration — by itself is likely to convince adversaries such as Russia, China, or North Korea that the United States would not or could not use nuclear weapons first in a crisis or conflict. The simple fact is that no matter what the United States says about restricting the role of nuclear weapons, adversaries will remain skeptical that Washington will adhere to any such strictures because nothing physically prevents the United States from violating them. The concerns they have today will thus likely persist irrespective of American declaratory policy absent drastic force structure and procedural changes that are unrealistic in the foreseeable future. The sole purpose debate primarily concerns U.S. allies, and this is where the precise formulation matters the most. Even if the Biden administration chooses to adopt the narrowest possible sole purpose declaration (option 1) — the one proposed by Biden himself for several years now — there may be just enough of a sliver of daylight between it and a no-first-use declaration to assure allies that even if the envisioned purpose of American nuclear weapons is to retaliate against nuclear use against the United States or its allies in extremis, it does not explicitly commit the United States to not using nuclear weapons first in extreme unforeseen circumstances. This may be too clever by half, however. And it is unlikely to alleviate abandonment concerns in Seoul and Tokyo. As such, the second formulation may square the circle. By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners,” the United States can meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration — and allies would have a harder time believing or arguing that it is — but it declares and states the reality that the United States currently possesses nuclear weapons solely — not primarily or fundamentally, but solely — to broadly deter nuclear attack on itself and its allies. And it leaves just enough ambiguity about how the United States may do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence. This formulation does not constrain U.S. nuclear employment options, but it assures the world — adversaries and allies alike — that the United States would only ever use nuclear weapons in the most extreme of circumstances. Advocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained U.S. nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration. And now-President Biden should deliver on the vision he sketched out first as vice president, and later as a presidential candidate: The sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Sole Purpose 2: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks against the U\nS\nand its allies.\nThe second sole purpose formulation,\n, leaves the matter open. If the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks, then\nthe president could threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary from following through on preparations to launch nuclear weapons\nunlike a no-first-use pledge\nthe second sole purpose formulation\nmerely describes the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, leaving a wider scope of employment, including first use, if it were in the service of “deterring nuclear attacks”\nInstead of constraining use, option 2 explains to allies and adversaries alike that the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence, which may include\nbroader use options that seek to deter nuclear use.\nthe second formulation may square the circle. By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the U\nS\nour allies,\nthe U\nS\ncan meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration\nit leaves just enough ambiguity about how the U\nS\nmay do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence\nAdvocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained U.S. nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration\nBiden should deliver on the vision\nThe sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Counterplan solves the AFF while maintaining primary and extended deterrence:", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Sole Purpose 2: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks against the U\nS\nand its allies.\nThe second sole purpose formulation,\n, leaves the matter open. If the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks, then\nthe president could threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary from following through on preparations to launch nuclear weapons\nunlike a no-first-use pledge\nthe second sole purpose formulation\nmerely describes the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, leaving a wider scope of employment, including first use, if it were in the service of “deterring nuclear attacks”\nInstead of constraining use, option 2 explains to allies and adversaries alike that the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence, which may include\nbroader use options that seek to deter nuclear use.\nthe second formulation may square the circle. By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the U\nS\nour allies,\nthe U\nS\ncan meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration\nit leaves just enough ambiguity about how the U\nS\nmay do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence\nAdvocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained U.S. nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration\nBiden should deliver on the vision\nThe sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "leaves the matter open\ncould threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary\nleaving a wider scope of employment,\nweapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence\nbroader use options\nthe second formulation may square the circle\nmeaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons\nwithout undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments\nIt is not a no-first-use declaration\nit leaves just enough ambiguity\navoid eroding primary or extended deterrence\ndeliver on the vision\nThe sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "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: Counterplan solves the AFF while maintaining primary and extended deterrence:\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Sole Purpose 2: The sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks against the U\nS\nand its allies.\nThe second sole purpose formulation,\n, leaves the matter open. If the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks, then\nthe president could threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary from following through on preparations to launch nuclear weapons\nunlike a no-first-use pledge\nthe second sole purpose formulation\nmerely describes the purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, leaving a wider scope of employment, including first use, if it were in the service of “deterring nuclear attacks”\nInstead of constraining use, option 2 explains to allies and adversaries alike that the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence, which may include\nbroader use options that seek to deter nuclear use.\nthe second formulation may square the circle. By declaring simply that “the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the U\nS\nour allies,\nthe U\nS\ncan meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments. It is not a no-first-use declaration\nit leaves just enough ambiguity about how the U\nS\nmay do so and against what threats to avoid eroding primary or extended deterrence\nAdvocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained U.S. nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration\nBiden should deliver on the vision\nThe sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "If the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks, then\nthe president could threaten nuclear first use in a crisis to deter an adversary\nleaving a wider scope of employment, including first use\nInstead of constraining use, option 2 explains to allies and adversaries\nthe role of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats is limited to nuclear deterrence\ndeclaring\nthat\nthe U\nS\ncan meaningfully de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy without undermining the robustness of its extended deterrence commitments.\nit leaves just enough ambiguity\nAdvocates of American alliances, extended deterrence, and a more restrained U.S. nuclear posture alike should welcome such a declaration\nBiden should deliver on the vision\nThe sole purpose for American possession of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack against the United States and its allies.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Their focus on urgent bodies privileges abstraction and critical distance that recreates insecurity – materiality not reducible to discourse", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nWhile feminists usually try to ground the meanings that they study, theorizing the mundane or the everyday may very well represent a detour —or even a dead end—if bread-and-butter issues related to the security and economic well-being of ordinary women and men are ignored. What value does feminist theorizing (even if it draws from women’s lived experiences) have in war-affected contexts where meeting immediate needs is paramount? At what point does the theorizing of the body under such circumstances become a means to satisfying intellectual fetishes? Theorizing the everyday is messy because it has to contend with the immediate social setting in which popular culture is inseparable from the economic materiality of the conditions of oppression. In response to this dilemma, my aim is to argue for a productive rather than a reductive relationship between Feminist Security Studies (FSS) and Feminist (International) Political Economy (FPE), achieved through a reframed relationship between discursive subjectivity and a structure-centred materiality. I argue for a more systematic feminist analysis that reunites FPE and cultural FSS critiques. This analytical synthesis is based on an understanding of the co-constituted agency of discourse and materiality underpinned by a postcolonial-feminist attention to the politics of space. After the Cold War, security became a catch-all concept for critical variants of IR, but instead of working against disciplinary fragmentation, “security has settled into each new camp in particularistic ways” (Sylvester 2013, 618). For FSS the main concern is to underscore the conceptual necessity of gender to understanding security. Although scholars have also emphasized the theoretical and methodological diversity of FSS, I contend that there is an implicit hierarchy of sorts when it comes to which critical tradition matters more theoretically or epistemologically—with a subtle but distinct privileging of the discursive as evidenced by the influential contributions of, among others, Judith Butler (1993), Karin Fierke (2013a), Lene Hansen (2006), and Laura Shepherd (2008). FSS thus tends to focus on the gendered, discursive construction of forms of violence with less attention paid to materialities of economic insecurity. In contrast, FPE tends to avoid the security frame and its discursive implications and concentrates more on gender as a social relation of inequality and the gendered effects of capitalism or economic globalization. Poststructuralist scholarship in FSS insists that the discursive is not privileged over the material and that objects in the material world and human subjects both take their forms and agencies relationally, as they are embedded within particular locations. Similarly, gendered and embodied security is theorized to be the outcome of relational processes —performed in, by, and through those relations. Theory thus makes practice (Foucault 1972). Yet, thinking about our bodies as cultural constructs, produced as objects in security discourse, has a high level of abstraction. Before we can analyze discourse about bodies, shouldn’t we first make the bodies from “other worlds,” rooted in everyday struggles of human insecurity, feature in IR? How is attention to contextualized discourses of individuals or groups without considering their basic needs different from what liberal feminists are doing, namely treating those whose security is at stake as abstract, silent, rights-bearing individuals with no culture? Moreover, for all this talk about interactions between language and matter (as if they were equal), “language” remains the star of the show, as evidenced in Karin Fierke’s claim that “embodied security is . . . fundamentally bound up in the interaction between humans and their material environment, both of which are constituted in and through language” (Fierke 2013b, 16). Theoretically, materiality should gain agency through the fact that it cannot ontologically be separated from discursive forces but in practice discourses treat material practices (bodies) as effects (objects) rather than causes (subjects), and consequently maintain agency (Wilcox 2012). A subtle hierarchy is therefore imposed. Reversing the starting point of the inquiry may succeed in troubling dualistic thinking but does not transcend it. We may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater when we privileged the effects of cultural constructions of gender difference at the expense of the material effects of bodies, economic justice, and security (see Fraser 2013). There are clearly limits to discursive analysis, especially when it comes to connecting physical insecurity and the materiality of insecurity linked to structures. We must therefore look to the so-called “new materialisms” on posthumanist agency (Connolly 2013), material feminisms (Hughes 2013), and Feminist IPE. Feminist IPE as a diverse body of scholarship studies structures, social practices, and the meanings of the global political economy (Griffin 2010; Peterson 2007). The emphasis falls on specifically gendered bodies while also foregrounding differences that are based upon material and structural inequalities as well as intersectional relations of disadvantage (e.g., gender, institutionalized racism, or ethnicity). In this regard, FPE may find itself closer than FSS to a radical definition of human security as everyday life experiences embedded in global structures of inclusion and exclusion and can keep FSS honest by guiding it back to a concern with everyday (economic) insecurities.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "feminists\ntheorizing the mundane or\neveryday may\nwell represent a\ndead end\nif bread-and-butter issues related to\nsecurity\nare ignored\nWhat value does feminist theorizing\nhave in war-affected contexts where meeting immediate needs is paramount? At what point does the theorizing of the body under such circumstances become a means to satisfying intellectual fetishes?\nthere is an implicit hierarchy\nwhen it comes to which critical tradition matters more theoretically or epistemologically\nwith a\ndistinct privileging of the discursive\nFSS\ntends to focus on the gendered, discursive construction of forms of violence with less attention paid to materialities of\ninsecurity\nthinking about our bodies as cultural constructs, produced as objects in security discourse, has a high level of abstraction\nBefore we can analyze discourse about bodies, shouldn’t we first make the bodies from “other worlds,”\nfeature in IR? How is attention to contextualized discourses of individuals or groups without considering their basic needs different from what liberal feminists are doing\ntreating those whose security is at stake as abstract, silent, rights-bearing individuals with no culture?\nfor all this talk about interactions between language and matter (as if they were equal), “language” remains the star of the show\nA subtle hierarchy is\nimposed\nThere are clearly limits to discursive analysis\nespecially when it comes to connecting physical insecurity and the materiality of insecurity linked to structures", "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 focus on urgent bodies privileges abstraction and critical distance that recreates insecurity – materiality not reducible to discourse", "role": "system" }, { "content": "feminists\ntheorizing the mundane or\neveryday may\nwell represent a\ndead end\nif bread-and-butter issues related to\nsecurity\nare ignored\nWhat value does feminist theorizing\nhave in war-affected contexts where meeting immediate needs is paramount? At what point does the theorizing of the body under such circumstances become a means to satisfying intellectual fetishes?\nthere is an implicit hierarchy\nwhen it comes to which critical tradition matters more theoretically or epistemologically\nwith a\ndistinct privileging of the discursive\nFSS\ntends to focus on the gendered, discursive construction of forms of violence with less attention paid to materialities of\ninsecurity\nthinking about our bodies as cultural constructs, produced as objects in security discourse, has a high level of abstraction\nBefore we can analyze discourse about bodies, shouldn’t we first make the bodies from “other worlds,”\nfeature in IR? How is attention to contextualized discourses of individuals or groups without considering their basic needs different from what liberal feminists are doing\ntreating those whose security is at stake as abstract, silent, rights-bearing individuals with no culture?\nfor all this talk about interactions between language and matter (as if they were equal), “language” remains the star of the show\nA subtle hierarchy is\nimposed\nThere are clearly limits to discursive analysis\nespecially when it comes to connecting physical insecurity and the materiality of insecurity linked to structures", "role": "user" }, { "content": "dead end\nimmediate needs\nparamount\nintellectual fetishes\ndistinct privileging of the discursive\nless attention paid to materialities of\ninsecurity\nlanguage” remains the star of the show\nA subtle hierarchy is\nimposed\nThere are clearly limits to discursive analysis", "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 focus on urgent bodies privileges abstraction and critical distance that recreates insecurity – materiality not reducible to discourse\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "feminists\ntheorizing the mundane or\neveryday may\nwell represent a\ndead end\nif bread-and-butter issues related to\nsecurity\nare ignored\nWhat value does feminist theorizing\nhave in war-affected contexts where meeting immediate needs is paramount? At what point does the theorizing of the body under such circumstances become a means to satisfying intellectual fetishes?\nthere is an implicit hierarchy\nwhen it comes to which critical tradition matters more theoretically or epistemologically\nwith a\ndistinct privileging of the discursive\nFSS\ntends to focus on the gendered, discursive construction of forms of violence with less attention paid to materialities of\ninsecurity\nthinking about our bodies as cultural constructs, produced as objects in security discourse, has a high level of abstraction\nBefore we can analyze discourse about bodies, shouldn’t we first make the bodies from “other worlds,”\nfeature in IR? How is attention to contextualized discourses of individuals or groups without considering their basic needs different from what liberal feminists are doing\ntreating those whose security is at stake as abstract, silent, rights-bearing individuals with no culture?\nfor all this talk about interactions between language and matter (as if they were equal), “language” remains the star of the show\nA subtle hierarchy is\nimposed\nThere are clearly limits to discursive analysis\nespecially when it comes to connecting physical insecurity and the materiality of insecurity linked to structures", "role": "user" }, { "content": "feminists\ntheorizing the\neveryday may\nrepresent a\ndead end\nWhat value does\ntheorizing\nhave in war-affected contexts where\nimmediate need\nis paramount?\nthere is an implicit hierarchy\nwhen it comes to\ncritical tradition\nprivileging\nthe discursive\nless attention paid to materialities of\ninsecurity\nthinking about our bodies as\nobjects in security discourse, has a high level of abstraction\nHow is attention to\ndiscourses\nwithout considering\nbasic needs different\nlanguage” remains the star of the show\nA subtle hierarchy is\nimposed\nThere are clearly limits to discursive analysis\nen it comes to connecting physical insecurity and the materiality of insecurity linked to structures", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: C/I Of is a function word to exclude", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nDefinition of of\n (Entry 1 of 3)\n1—used as a function word to indicate a point of reckoning north of the lake\n2a—used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation a man of noble birth\nb—used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason died of flu\nc:  plays of Shakespeare\nd: on the part of very kind of you\ne: occurring in a fish of the western Atlantic\n3—used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents throne of goldcup of water\n4a—used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word most of the army\nb—used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended gave of his time", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Definition of\nof\n4a—used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word most of the army\nb—used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended gave of his 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: C/I Of is a function word to exclude\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Definition of\nof\n4a—used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word most of the army\nb—used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended gave of his time", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Definition of\nof\na function word to indicate the whole that includes the part\nmost of the army\nused as a function word to indicate a whole\nfrom which a part is removed\ngave of his time", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Infrastructure will pass but continued “good faith” negotiations over the social spending bill are key", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Manchin argued that \"good faith\" negotiations about a forthcoming climate and social spending bill are enough to unstick the Senate’s infrastructure bill. Sinema said she's \"doing great, making progress.\"\n“The president has made that very clear: He wants to move forward. And we owe it to the president to move forward, take a vote on the infrastructure bill,” Manchin told reporters on Wednesday morning. “He believes 100 percent of nothing is nothing.”\nWhere are Democrats in the tax hike fight?\nManchin explained that when a deal is cut, Biden will “go over to the House, and he’ll basically explain to the House: ‘I have a framework, but there's still an awful lot of work to be done,’” Manchin said.\nSpeaker Nancy Pelosi told House Democrats on Wednesday morning that her party is “in pretty good shape.” Even so, Pelosi continues to face an intense push-pull from liberals — who want to see a full social spending bill before voting on the Senate's bipartisan infrastructure deal — and moderates who want to get the infrastructure vote finally set, as soon as possible.\n“It’s lamb eat lamb. There is no bad decision. We have to choose,” Pelosi told her members, according to a source familiar with her remarks. Senate Democrats say it’s highly unlikely bill text will be totally finalized this week, however.\nProgressives have also blanched at Sinema’s efforts to avoid raising tax rates and Manchin’s move to cut the bill's top line. Those moves have prompted a deal on a corporate minimum tax and tenuous negotiations on a billionaires tax, as well as potential cuts to plans for Medicare expansion, Medicaid expansion and paid leave. Efforts to lower drug prices through Medicare negotiations are headed toward a more limited approach, Democrats said.\nBy midday Wednesday, the billionaire tax was out of the mix, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks. Manchin said the tax on billionaire’s assets is “convoluted” and instead pitched a “patriotic” 15 percent tax on wealthy people. He said he did not want to target a certain class of people through the tax code.\nHis comments complicated negotiations, some Democrats said.\n\"I continue to be optimistic that on the spending side, there are pathways toward closing the remaining gaps,\" said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). \"But I recognize that Sen. Manchin's just made a comment that made some of the revenue side\" more complex.\nWith the billionaires tax out, Democrats are now taking another look at a surtax on people making more than $5 million a year that the House Ways and Means Committee passed last month.\nManchin also continued to throw cold water on health care proposals, which Sanders said was not negotiable and “must” be in the bill. His colleague, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), said he’d spoken to Manchin and is “encouraged” that Democrats can find a way to cover Georgians and other Americans who live in states that have not expanded Medicaid but would otherwise be eligible.\nDemocrats are more confident about climate subsidies and universal pre-K making it into in the package, along with an extension of the Child Tax Credit. But it all comes down to where Manchin and Sinema fall — and whether the rest of the party’s thin majorities go along with Biden's dealmaking. Chairmen of the Senate's climate-related committees met again on Wednesday afternoon, according to Democratic sources.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "\"good faith\" negotiations about a\nclimate and social spending bill are enough to unstick the\ninfrastructure bill\nSinema said she's\nmaking progress\npresident has made that very clear\na vote on the infrastructure bill\nDemocrats\nin pretty good shape\nThere is no bad decision\nWe have to choose\nEfforts to lower drug prices through\nnegotiations are headed toward a more limited approach\nbillionaire tax was out of the mix\ncontinue to be optimistic\non the spending side\npathways toward closing the remaining gaps\nDemocrats are\nconfident about climate subsidies\nmaking it into in the package\nit all comes down to where Manchin and Sinema fall", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Infrastructure will pass but continued “good faith” negotiations over the social spending bill are key", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\"good faith\" negotiations about a\nclimate and social spending bill are enough to unstick the\ninfrastructure bill\nSinema said she's\nmaking progress\npresident has made that very clear\na vote on the infrastructure bill\nDemocrats\nin pretty good shape\nThere is no bad decision\nWe have to choose\nEfforts to lower drug prices through\nnegotiations are headed toward a more limited approach\nbillionaire tax was out of the mix\ncontinue to be optimistic\non the spending side\npathways toward closing the remaining gaps\nDemocrats are\nconfident about climate subsidies\nmaking it into in the package\nit all comes down to where Manchin and Sinema fall", "role": "user" }, { "content": "good faith\nunstick\nprogress\ninfrastructure\ngood shape\nlimited\noptimistic\nconfident\nManchin\nSinema fall", "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: Infrastructure will pass but continued “good faith” negotiations over the social spending bill are key\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\"good faith\" negotiations about a\nclimate and social spending bill are enough to unstick the\ninfrastructure bill\nSinema said she's\nmaking progress\npresident has made that very clear\na vote on the infrastructure bill\nDemocrats\nin pretty good shape\nThere is no bad decision\nWe have to choose\nEfforts to lower drug prices through\nnegotiations are headed toward a more limited approach\nbillionaire tax was out of the mix\ncontinue to be optimistic\non the spending side\npathways toward closing the remaining gaps\nDemocrats are\nconfident about climate subsidies\nmaking it into in the package\nit all comes down to where Manchin and Sinema fall", "role": "user" }, { "content": "good faith\nnegotiations about\nspending bill are enough to unstick the\ninfrastructure bill\nSinema\nmaking progress\npresident\nmade\nvery clear\nvote on\ninfrastructure bill\nDemocrats\nin pretty good shape\ntax was out of the mix\ncontinue to be optimistic\non\npathways\nclosing the\ngaps\nDemocrats are\nconfident about climate\nit all comes down to where Manchin and Sinema fall", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. Squo solves missile prolif---the MTCR’s strong and locked in", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The MTCR is a technology-focused export-control regime, comprising a voluntary association of 35 member states that apply agreed standards (‘Guidelines for Sensitive Missile-Relevant Transfers’) designed to limit the export of technology that can be used for the uncrewed delivery of WMD.1 It was established by the G7 on 16 April 1987 to address the proliferation of nuclear-capable missiles, in particular by the Soviet Union and China but also through indigenous programmes in Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa.2 The MTCR was part of a global acquis to control missiles, alongside US–Soviet Union bilateral arms-control initiatives – especially the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was concluded two days before the MTCR was announced.3 The MTCR initially focused on missiles (along with components, technology and related equipment) capable of delivering a 500-kilogram warhead to a 300-kilometre distance.4\nThe MTCR Guidelines include a detailed Annex which defines complete delivery systems and production facilities (Category I items), as well as supporting equipment, software and technologies that could contribute to building delivery systems (Category II items).5 The Annex contains clear guidance on the transfer of these items, requiring that six factors must be taken into account: concerns regarding WMD proliferation, the nature of the recipient’s missile and space programmes, the relationship between the transferred technology and WMD-delivery capabilities, the specific end use of the technology, the relationship to other agreements, and the risk of proliferation to non-state actors.6\nGovernance\nFrance serves as the Point of Contact (POC) for the MTCR, with an informal secretariat based in Paris. To support and maintain the regime, MTCR member states convene through three sub-groups – the Technical Experts Meeting (TEM), the Information Exchange Meeting (IEM) and the Licensing and Enforcement Experts Meeting (LEEM) – and a plenary session, each of which takes place annually.\nThere are also monthly POC meetings in Paris, attended by representatives from member states’ local embassies, and intercessional Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) meetings in April or May.7 Individual member states volunteer to serve as the rotating annual MTCR chair, as part of the MTCR Troika composed of the previous, current and next chair countries. The current chair is Switzerland (Ambassador Benno Laggner). The chair is expected to lead outreach efforts, including Technical Outreach Meetings (TOMs), for MTCR partners and non-partners alike.8\nMTCR membership is limited to states with significant capabilities related to missile-delivery systems, space-launch vehicles (SLVs) and associated technologies. The MTCR’s work is confidential, with expert working groups exchanging sensitive information in order to derive useful guidelines for export controls. The MTCR Annex includes a set of definitions of the highest technical complexity and is continually updated by experts from each of the member states. The Annex is used in a number of formats, including sanctions regimes and other export bans in UN, bilateral and other multilateral contexts. The MTCR provides all partner states with support to create and implement export controls consistent with the Guidelines. To date, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Latvia have been conferred status as formal MTCR adherents, with Israel, North Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia pledging their own unilateral compliance.9 Cyprus and Iraq have pledged to adopt the Guidelines as part of their implementation of UNSCR 1540, and China has also pledged adherence to them although suspicions remain about its proliferation record.10\nEvolution\nIn 1992 the member states expanded the MTCR to address all WMD, and UAVs, target drones and cruise missiles.11 They also called on all other states to declare themselves ‘universal adherents’ to the regime and to agree to apply the MTCR Guidelines. After the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US, the MTCR’s goals were expanded to address transfers to non-state actors, reinforced by UNSCR 1540.12\nThe MTCR also includes the concepts of ‘particular restraint’ on sales and exports, and a ‘presumption of denial’ standard for the most concerning systems and their enabling technologies. However, the MTCR’s focus on WMD delivery somewhat undermines its effectiveness, especially as higher-precision conventionally armed systems are increasingly becoming the norm. At the time of the original MTCR negotiations, ballistic and cruise missiles were mostly inaccurate – with limited exceptions such as the United States’ UGM-109C Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (LACM) – and therefore ballistic missiles in particular would have required a nuclear warhead in order to have a reliable effect on their targets.\nThe MTCR also contains three other important principles: ‘no undercut’, ‘catchall’ and ‘intangible technology transfer’. The ‘no undercut’ policy, introduced in 1994, specifies that partners and adherents will not undermine each other by granting an export licence when another state has already denied it based on the MTCR Guidelines (these concepts are also used by the Australia Group and the Nuclear Supplies Group).13 The ‘catchall’ provision, added to the Guidelines in September 2003, allows all regime partners to deny exports of items not included in the MTCR Annex if it is known that they will support a missile programme.14 It followed the adoption of similar provisions by the Australia Group in 2002.15 The MTCR Annex was also expanded to include ‘intangible’ technology transfers (of software, for example) in 2003.16\nStrengths\nThe MTCR has had several notable successes since its signing. Firstly, despite being a supply-side arrangement, it has evolved into a global norm that has increased security and helped restrain missile proliferation. This has occurred despite the absence of a universal and legally binding treaty within the UN framework. The regime’s 35 member states include many of the most important possessors and producers of missiles and related technologies. By limiting membership to states that possess the most advanced delivery systems and related technologies, the MTCR’s three expert working groups operate at the highest levels of detail. The resulting MTCR Annex is an impressive document, with an agreed scope and a set of definitions of the highest technical complexity. The expertise provided by MTCR working-group members also means the Annex is continually updated by world-leading experts on missile technology and export control. The Annex features such an extraordinary level of detail, relevance and scope that it has been used as the basis for missile-technology controls enacted under other UNSC resolutions. 17 The MTCR’s programme of outreach to non-member states has supported them in adopting the MTCR’s controls through the ‘adherent’ system and aligning their export controls. The transparent adoption of standards and the regular outreach is a major step forward in formalising a previously informal process.\nTogether, these factors have played a role in slowing or stopping several significant missile programmes, including ending the joint Argentine–Egyptian–Iraqi Condor II ballistic-missile programme; eliminating the missile stockpiles of former Warsaw Pact states that had aspirations to join the European Union, NATO and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); (temporarily) impeding the missile programmes of India and South Korea; and eliminating Libya’s Category I missiles.18 Although other factors, including diplomatic and economic pressures and incentives, encouraged these positive outcomes, the MTCR played an important contributory role.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "MTCR is a tech\n-focused export-control regime, comprising a voluntary association of 35 member states that apply agreed standards\nto address\nproliferation of nuclear-capable missiles\nMTCR was part of a global acquis to control missiles, alongside\nINF\nMTCR’s work is confidential, with expert working groups exchanging sensitive information in order to derive useful guidelines for export controls\nMTCR provides all partner states with support to create and implement export controls consistent with the Guidelines\nmember states expanded the MTCR to address all WMD, and UAVs, target drones and cruise missiles\nMTCR’s goals were expanded to address transfers to non-state actors\nMTCR\nincludes\nparticular restraint’ on sales and exports, and a ‘presumption of denial’ standard for the most concerning systems and their enabling technologies\nThe ‘no undercut’ policy\nspecifies\npartners and adherents will not undermine each other by granting an export licence when another state has already denied it based on the MTCR Guidelines\nMTCR has had several notable successes\ndespite being a supply-side arrangement, it has evolved into a global norm that has increased security and helped restrain missile proliferation\ndespite the absence of a universal and legally binding treaty\nBy limiting membership to states that possess the most advanced delivery systems and related technologies, the MTCR’s three expert working groups operate at the highest levels of detail\nexpertise provided by MTCR working-group members also means the Annex is continually updated by world-leading experts on missile technology and export control\nMTCR’s programme of outreach to non-member states has supported them in adopting the MTCR’s controls through the ‘adherent’ system and aligning their export controls\nthese factors have played a role in slowing or stopping several significant missile programmes, including ending the joint Argentine–Egyptian–Iraqi Condor II ballistic-missile programme;\nimpeding the missile programmes of India and South Korea; and eliminating Libya’s Category I missiles.", "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. Squo solves missile prolif---the MTCR’s strong and locked in", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The MTCR is a technology-focused export-control regime, comprising a voluntary association of 35 member states that apply agreed standards (‘Guidelines for Sensitive Missile-Relevant Transfers’) designed to limit the export of technology that can be used for the uncrewed delivery of WMD.1 It was established by the G7 on 16 April 1987 to address the proliferation of nuclear-capable missiles, in particular by the Soviet Union and China but also through indigenous programmes in Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa.2 The MTCR was part of a global acquis to control missiles, alongside US–Soviet Union bilateral arms-control initiatives – especially the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was concluded two days before the MTCR was announced.3 The MTCR initially focused on missiles (along with components, technology and related equipment) capable of delivering a 500-kilogram warhead to a 300-kilometre distance.4\nThe MTCR Guidelines include a detailed Annex which defines complete delivery systems and production facilities (Category I items), as well as supporting equipment, software and technologies that could contribute to building delivery systems (Category II items).5 The Annex contains clear guidance on the transfer of these items, requiring that six factors must be taken into account: concerns regarding WMD proliferation, the nature of the recipient’s missile and space programmes, the relationship between the transferred technology and WMD-delivery capabilities, the specific end use of the technology, the relationship to other agreements, and the risk of proliferation to non-state actors.6\nGovernance\nFrance serves as the Point of Contact (POC) for the MTCR, with an informal secretariat based in Paris. To support and maintain the regime, MTCR member states convene through three sub-groups – the Technical Experts Meeting (TEM), the Information Exchange Meeting (IEM) and the Licensing and Enforcement Experts Meeting (LEEM) – and a plenary session, each of which takes place annually.\nThere are also monthly POC meetings in Paris, attended by representatives from member states’ local embassies, and intercessional Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) meetings in April or May.7 Individual member states volunteer to serve as the rotating annual MTCR chair, as part of the MTCR Troika composed of the previous, current and next chair countries. The current chair is Switzerland (Ambassador Benno Laggner). The chair is expected to lead outreach efforts, including Technical Outreach Meetings (TOMs), for MTCR partners and non-partners alike.8\nMTCR membership is limited to states with significant capabilities related to missile-delivery systems, space-launch vehicles (SLVs) and associated technologies. The MTCR’s work is confidential, with expert working groups exchanging sensitive information in order to derive useful guidelines for export controls. The MTCR Annex includes a set of definitions of the highest technical complexity and is continually updated by experts from each of the member states. The Annex is used in a number of formats, including sanctions regimes and other export bans in UN, bilateral and other multilateral contexts. The MTCR provides all partner states with support to create and implement export controls consistent with the Guidelines. To date, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Latvia have been conferred status as formal MTCR adherents, with Israel, North Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia pledging their own unilateral compliance.9 Cyprus and Iraq have pledged to adopt the Guidelines as part of their implementation of UNSCR 1540, and China has also pledged adherence to them although suspicions remain about its proliferation record.10\nEvolution\nIn 1992 the member states expanded the MTCR to address all WMD, and UAVs, target drones and cruise missiles.11 They also called on all other states to declare themselves ‘universal adherents’ to the regime and to agree to apply the MTCR Guidelines. After the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US, the MTCR’s goals were expanded to address transfers to non-state actors, reinforced by UNSCR 1540.12\nThe MTCR also includes the concepts of ‘particular restraint’ on sales and exports, and a ‘presumption of denial’ standard for the most concerning systems and their enabling technologies. However, the MTCR’s focus on WMD delivery somewhat undermines its effectiveness, especially as higher-precision conventionally armed systems are increasingly becoming the norm. At the time of the original MTCR negotiations, ballistic and cruise missiles were mostly inaccurate – with limited exceptions such as the United States’ UGM-109C Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile (LACM) – and therefore ballistic missiles in particular would have required a nuclear warhead in order to have a reliable effect on their targets.\nThe MTCR also contains three other important principles: ‘no undercut’, ‘catchall’ and ‘intangible technology transfer’. The ‘no undercut’ policy, introduced in 1994, specifies that partners and adherents will not undermine each other by granting an export licence when another state has already denied it based on the MTCR Guidelines (these concepts are also used by the Australia Group and the Nuclear Supplies Group).13 The ‘catchall’ provision, added to the Guidelines in September 2003, allows all regime partners to deny exports of items not included in the MTCR Annex if it is known that they will support a missile programme.14 It followed the adoption of similar provisions by the Australia Group in 2002.15 The MTCR Annex was also expanded to include ‘intangible’ technology transfers (of software, for example) in 2003.16\nStrengths\nThe MTCR has had several notable successes since its signing. Firstly, despite being a supply-side arrangement, it has evolved into a global norm that has increased security and helped restrain missile proliferation. This has occurred despite the absence of a universal and legally binding treaty within the UN framework. The regime’s 35 member states include many of the most important possessors and producers of missiles and related technologies. By limiting membership to states that possess the most advanced delivery systems and related technologies, the MTCR’s three expert working groups operate at the highest levels of detail. The resulting MTCR Annex is an impressive document, with an agreed scope and a set of definitions of the highest technical complexity. The expertise provided by MTCR working-group members also means the Annex is continually updated by world-leading experts on missile technology and export control. The Annex features such an extraordinary level of detail, relevance and scope that it has been used as the basis for missile-technology controls enacted under other UNSC resolutions. 17 The MTCR’s programme of outreach to non-member states has supported them in adopting the MTCR’s controls through the ‘adherent’ system and aligning their export controls. The transparent adoption of standards and the regular outreach is a major step forward in formalising a previously informal process.\nTogether, these factors have played a role in slowing or stopping several significant missile programmes, including ending the joint Argentine–Egyptian–Iraqi Condor II ballistic-missile programme; eliminating the missile stockpiles of former Warsaw Pact states that had aspirations to join the European Union, NATO and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); (temporarily) impeding the missile programmes of India and South Korea; and eliminating Libya’s Category I missiles.18 Although other factors, including diplomatic and economic pressures and incentives, encouraged these positive outcomes, the MTCR played an important contributory role.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "tech\nINF\nconfidential\ninfo\nall WMD, and UAVs, target drones and cruise missiles\ntransfers to non-state actors\nseveral notable successes\nglobal norm\nrestrain missile prolif\nabsence of a universal and legally binding treaty\nhighest levels of detail\ncontinually updated by world-leading experts\nslowing or stopping several significant missile programmes", "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. Squo solves missile prolif---the MTCR’s strong and locked in\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "MTCR is a tech\n-focused export-control regime, comprising a voluntary association of 35 member states that apply agreed standards\nto address\nproliferation of nuclear-capable missiles\nMTCR was part of a global acquis to control missiles, alongside\nINF\nMTCR’s work is confidential, with expert working groups exchanging sensitive information in order to derive useful guidelines for export controls\nMTCR provides all partner states with support to create and implement export controls consistent with the Guidelines\nmember states expanded the MTCR to address all WMD, and UAVs, target drones and cruise missiles\nMTCR’s goals were expanded to address transfers to non-state actors\nMTCR\nincludes\nparticular restraint’ on sales and exports, and a ‘presumption of denial’ standard for the most concerning systems and their enabling technologies\nThe ‘no undercut’ policy\nspecifies\npartners and adherents will not undermine each other by granting an export licence when another state has already denied it based on the MTCR Guidelines\nMTCR has had several notable successes\ndespite being a supply-side arrangement, it has evolved into a global norm that has increased security and helped restrain missile proliferation\ndespite the absence of a universal and legally binding treaty\nBy limiting membership to states that possess the most advanced delivery systems and related technologies, the MTCR’s three expert working groups operate at the highest levels of detail\nexpertise provided by MTCR working-group members also means the Annex is continually updated by world-leading experts on missile technology and export control\nMTCR’s programme of outreach to non-member states has supported them in adopting the MTCR’s controls through the ‘adherent’ system and aligning their export controls\nthese factors have played a role in slowing or stopping several significant missile programmes, including ending the joint Argentine–Egyptian–Iraqi Condor II ballistic-missile programme;\nimpeding the missile programmes of India and South Korea; and eliminating Libya’s Category I missiles.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "MTCR is a tech\n-focused export-control regime\nwork is confidential, with expert\ngroups exchanging sensitive info\nto derive useful guidelines\nmember states expanded\nto address all WMD\nUAVs\ndrones and cruise missiles\ntransfers to non-state actors\nMTCR\nhad\nnotable successes\nit has evolved into\nglobal norm that\nincreased security\nhelped restrain missile prolif\ndespite\nabsence of a universal\nbinding treaty\nMTCR’s\nworking groups operate at\nhighest levels of detail\ncontinually updated by world-leading experts\noutreach to non-member states\nsupported\naligning\nexport controls\nthese factors\nplayed\nrole in\nstopping\nsignificant missile programmes", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: No causal relationship between democracy and peace---best studies.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "No one has challenged the multiple reports that contractualist economy is the strongest nontrivial predictor of peace both within (Mousseau, 2012b) and between nations (Mousseau, 2013; see also Nieman, 2015). The only matter in controversy is whether democracy has any impact on peace after consideration of contractualist economy. I investigated all five reasons offered in the literature (excluding already-refuted arguments) to think democracy causes peace, and found no support for any of them. The correlation of democracy with peace is zero regardless of how contractualist economy or interstate conflict is measured; the disaggregation of the data yields no support for a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy, and the state of knowledge offers no evidence of causation from democracy to contractualist economy and peace. While some correlation of democracy with peace appears in analyses of all disputes (at the 0.10 level), this appears to be a statistical artifact, since democracy is near zero in analyses of wars, fatal-only disputes (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a, 2013 and above), and militarized crises (Mousseau et al., 2013a, b). Analyses of all-disputes are less accurate than those of fatal disputes and crises because they are more likely to include events that are not state-to-state confrontations, and more likely to under-report events occurring in clientelist dyads. We saw that clientelist democracies tend to be geographically dispersed, and this may account for the non-fatal peace, which does not exist in bordering dyads where everyone has an equal chance to fight. The non-fatal correlation of democracy with peace is also marginal, as we saw in Table 4 that it includes only 27% of dyads and only 50% of joint-democratic dyads. This study largely investigated unsupported assertions of fact and showed them to lack support: neither DOR nor Ray (2013) properly supported their claims that multiple imputation, the treatment of ongoing dispute years, an interaction, the adoption of an alternative measure for contractualist economy, or reverse causality actually restore the evidence for the democratic peace. In this way this study merely corroborated what was already the state of knowledge, and it would be a mistake to think there are continuing factual differences in this controversy. I cannot promise that the analyses herein are error free, and I fully expect defenders of the democratic peace to carefully scrutinize them for errors, but no claim of error should be perceived as resurrecting the correlation of democracy with peace unless it is also shown to change results. Nor has anyone disputed the overturning of the democratic peace as reported in two studies (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a). While DOR (205) assert that the analyses in Mousseau (2009) are based on a misinterpreted interaction term, there is no such interaction term in Mousseau (2009). The only evidence-based defense of the democratic peace that exists today comes from DOR’s 120 regressions, 101 of which are invalid. Of the 19 valid ones, only 15 are of fatal disputes that count, and every one of these 15 regressions is mired by one of two questionable practices: five include control for the DemocracyH term that is said to artificially inflate the democracy coefficient; 10 are irrelevant because they include the inconsequential interaction term additionally calculated at the misleading 75th percentile of contractualist economy. If there is a correlation of democracy with peace, why cannot this be shown in a clear-cut regression? Beyond the facts, scientific assessment calls for acknowledgment of the imbalance of theory in this controversy. Economic norms theory does not deny the correlation of democracy with peace, and thus all prior evidence for it; rather, it offers a specific and falsifiable explanation for the correlation that identifies it as spurious. Defenders of the democratic peace are not putting forth a competing explanation for the correlation; rather, they simply oppose the idea that democracy does not independently cause peace, with no reason given for this opposition. However, democracy is not a random variable, so there are no scientific grounds that prohibit us from seeking to explain it, and there are no scientific grounds that preclude that whatever explains democracy cannot also explain the peace. Causality, not statistics, lies at the core of this controversy, and causality cannot be directly seen: it can only be theorized and corroborated. Yet defenders of the democratic peace have not addressed any of the extensive corroborations of economic norms theory accrued in studies of civil conflict and insurgency (Mousseau, 2012b), terrorism (Meierrieks 2012; Boehmer and Daube, 2013; Krieger and Meierrieks, 2015), democratization (Aytacx et al., 2016), and human rights (Mousseau and Mousseau, 2008). The weight of evidence for economic norms theory overwhelms any theory of democracy causing peace (Ungerer, 2012), yet defenders of the proposition have sought only to report some statistically significant correlation of democracy with peace, as if correlation equals causation (Dafoe, 2011; Dafoe and Russett, 2013; DOR; Ray, 2013; Russett, 2010). Nor is there any scientific basis for concluding that this controversy is ultimately unresolvable because the factors are closely related, as is frequently asserted without support (e.g. DOR: 203). The relevant factors are not closely related: contractualist economy is only moderately correlated with trade interdependence (0.31), income (0.71/0.56), and democracy (0.47) (Mousseau, 2013: 191–193). That contractualist nations are almost always democratic does not mean that democratic nations are almost always contractualist, and the majority 57% of democracies had clientelist economies from 1950 to 2010. The notion that democracy, market development, and trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance, and ignorance cannot justify discarding, after the fact, our carefully constructed measures and datasets.13 The implications of this study are far from trivial: the democratic peace, defined as democracy causing peace, lacks the evidentiary core on which it is based; the observation of democratic peace is best explained by contract norms. If our field is to abide by scientific rules of evidence, then our scholars must stop describing democracy as a ‘‘known’’ cause, or correlate, of peace, and we must stop tossing in a variable for democracy, willy-nilly, in quantitative analyses of international conflict. The variable to replace it is contractualist economy, which not only subsumes democracy but is now the most powerful non-trivial factor in the study of international conflict, whose impact is more than 10 times that which we once thought democracy had. No historical study is immune to criticism, but the progress of knowledge will not be furthered with another (third) round of ardently asserted claims of error that are not shown to change results. I understand the prior view of democratic peace is known and intuitive and the contractualist peace is less so, and unsupported assertions are enough for many to believe in already-known claims. However, the purpose of science is to promote rather than stifle innovation, and to differentiate good ideas from bad ones. Better yet are new ideas that can help make the world a better place, and economic norms theory is clear on that: if the wealthy market-oriented nations wish to advance democracy and peace around the world, the way to do that is to promote economic opportunity.\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "No one\nchallenged the multiple reports that contractualist economy is the strongest\npredictor of peace\nwithin\nand between nations\nThe only\ncontroversy is whether democracy has any impact on peace\ninvestigated all five reasons offered in the literature\nto think democracy causes peace, and found no support for any\ncorrelation of democracy with peace is zero regardless of how\nconflict is measured\nthe data yields no support for a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy, and\noffers no evidence of causation from democracy to\npeace\ndemocracies tend to be geographically dispersed, and this may account for the non-fatal peace, which does not exist in bordering dyads where everyone has an equal chance to fight\nnon-fatal correlation\nis also marginal\nno claim of error should be perceived as resurrecting the correlation of democracy with peace unless it is\nshown to change results\nThe only evidence-based defense of\ndemocratic peace that exists\ncomes from DOR’s 120 regressions, 101 of which are invalid\nonly 15 are of fatal dispute\nand every one of these 15\nis mired by\nquestionable practices: five include control for the DemocracyH term that is said to artificially inflate\ndemocracy\nIf there is a correlation of democracy with peace, why cannot this be shown in a clear-cut regression?\nscientific assessment calls for acknowledgment of the imbalance of theory\nDefenders of\ndemocratic peace\nsimply oppose the idea that democracy does not independently cause peace, with no reason\ndemocracy cannot\nexplain\npeace. Causality, not statistics, lies at the core of this controversy\ndefenders of\ndemocratic peace have not addressed any\nextensive corroborations of economic norms\naccrued in studies of civil conflict and\ndemocratization\neconomic norms theory overwhelms any theory of democracy causing peace\nThe notion that democracy, market development, and trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance\ndemocracy causing peace, lacks the evidentiary core on which it is based; the observation of democratic peace is best explained by contract norms\nThe variable to replace it is contractualist economy, which\nis now the most powerful non-trivial factor in the study of international conflict", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: No causal relationship between democracy and peace---best studies.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "No one has challenged the multiple reports that contractualist economy is the strongest nontrivial predictor of peace both within (Mousseau, 2012b) and between nations (Mousseau, 2013; see also Nieman, 2015). The only matter in controversy is whether democracy has any impact on peace after consideration of contractualist economy. I investigated all five reasons offered in the literature (excluding already-refuted arguments) to think democracy causes peace, and found no support for any of them. The correlation of democracy with peace is zero regardless of how contractualist economy or interstate conflict is measured; the disaggregation of the data yields no support for a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy, and the state of knowledge offers no evidence of causation from democracy to contractualist economy and peace. While some correlation of democracy with peace appears in analyses of all disputes (at the 0.10 level), this appears to be a statistical artifact, since democracy is near zero in analyses of wars, fatal-only disputes (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a, 2013 and above), and militarized crises (Mousseau et al., 2013a, b). Analyses of all-disputes are less accurate than those of fatal disputes and crises because they are more likely to include events that are not state-to-state confrontations, and more likely to under-report events occurring in clientelist dyads. We saw that clientelist democracies tend to be geographically dispersed, and this may account for the non-fatal peace, which does not exist in bordering dyads where everyone has an equal chance to fight. The non-fatal correlation of democracy with peace is also marginal, as we saw in Table 4 that it includes only 27% of dyads and only 50% of joint-democratic dyads. This study largely investigated unsupported assertions of fact and showed them to lack support: neither DOR nor Ray (2013) properly supported their claims that multiple imputation, the treatment of ongoing dispute years, an interaction, the adoption of an alternative measure for contractualist economy, or reverse causality actually restore the evidence for the democratic peace. In this way this study merely corroborated what was already the state of knowledge, and it would be a mistake to think there are continuing factual differences in this controversy. I cannot promise that the analyses herein are error free, and I fully expect defenders of the democratic peace to carefully scrutinize them for errors, but no claim of error should be perceived as resurrecting the correlation of democracy with peace unless it is also shown to change results. Nor has anyone disputed the overturning of the democratic peace as reported in two studies (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a). While DOR (205) assert that the analyses in Mousseau (2009) are based on a misinterpreted interaction term, there is no such interaction term in Mousseau (2009). The only evidence-based defense of the democratic peace that exists today comes from DOR’s 120 regressions, 101 of which are invalid. Of the 19 valid ones, only 15 are of fatal disputes that count, and every one of these 15 regressions is mired by one of two questionable practices: five include control for the DemocracyH term that is said to artificially inflate the democracy coefficient; 10 are irrelevant because they include the inconsequential interaction term additionally calculated at the misleading 75th percentile of contractualist economy. If there is a correlation of democracy with peace, why cannot this be shown in a clear-cut regression? Beyond the facts, scientific assessment calls for acknowledgment of the imbalance of theory in this controversy. Economic norms theory does not deny the correlation of democracy with peace, and thus all prior evidence for it; rather, it offers a specific and falsifiable explanation for the correlation that identifies it as spurious. Defenders of the democratic peace are not putting forth a competing explanation for the correlation; rather, they simply oppose the idea that democracy does not independently cause peace, with no reason given for this opposition. However, democracy is not a random variable, so there are no scientific grounds that prohibit us from seeking to explain it, and there are no scientific grounds that preclude that whatever explains democracy cannot also explain the peace. Causality, not statistics, lies at the core of this controversy, and causality cannot be directly seen: it can only be theorized and corroborated. Yet defenders of the democratic peace have not addressed any of the extensive corroborations of economic norms theory accrued in studies of civil conflict and insurgency (Mousseau, 2012b), terrorism (Meierrieks 2012; Boehmer and Daube, 2013; Krieger and Meierrieks, 2015), democratization (Aytacx et al., 2016), and human rights (Mousseau and Mousseau, 2008). The weight of evidence for economic norms theory overwhelms any theory of democracy causing peace (Ungerer, 2012), yet defenders of the proposition have sought only to report some statistically significant correlation of democracy with peace, as if correlation equals causation (Dafoe, 2011; Dafoe and Russett, 2013; DOR; Ray, 2013; Russett, 2010). Nor is there any scientific basis for concluding that this controversy is ultimately unresolvable because the factors are closely related, as is frequently asserted without support (e.g. DOR: 203). The relevant factors are not closely related: contractualist economy is only moderately correlated with trade interdependence (0.31), income (0.71/0.56), and democracy (0.47) (Mousseau, 2013: 191–193). That contractualist nations are almost always democratic does not mean that democratic nations are almost always contractualist, and the majority 57% of democracies had clientelist economies from 1950 to 2010. The notion that democracy, market development, and trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance, and ignorance cannot justify discarding, after the fact, our carefully constructed measures and datasets.13 The implications of this study are far from trivial: the democratic peace, defined as democracy causing peace, lacks the evidentiary core on which it is based; the observation of democratic peace is best explained by contract norms. If our field is to abide by scientific rules of evidence, then our scholars must stop describing democracy as a ‘‘known’’ cause, or correlate, of peace, and we must stop tossing in a variable for democracy, willy-nilly, in quantitative analyses of international conflict. The variable to replace it is contractualist economy, which not only subsumes democracy but is now the most powerful non-trivial factor in the study of international conflict, whose impact is more than 10 times that which we once thought democracy had. No historical study is immune to criticism, but the progress of knowledge will not be furthered with another (third) round of ardently asserted claims of error that are not shown to change results. I understand the prior view of democratic peace is known and intuitive and the contractualist peace is less so, and unsupported assertions are enough for many to believe in already-known claims. However, the purpose of science is to promote rather than stifle innovation, and to differentiate good ideas from bad ones. Better yet are new ideas that can help make the world a better place, and economic norms theory is clear on that: if the wealthy market-oriented nations wish to advance democracy and peace around the world, the way to do that is to promote economic opportunity.\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The only\ncontroversy is whether democracy has any impact on peace\ncorrelation of democracy with peace is zero regardless of how\nconflict is measured\nno claim of error should be perceived as resurrecting the correlation of democracy with peace unless it is\nshown to change results\nIf there is a correlation of democracy with peace, why cannot this be shown in a clear-cut regression?\nDefenders of\ndemocratic peace\nsimply oppose the idea that democracy does not independently cause peace, with no reason\ndefenders of\ndemocratic peace have not addressed any\nextensive corroborations of economic norms\naccrued in studies of civil conflict and\ndemocratization\nThe notion that democracy, market development, and trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance", "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 causal relationship between democracy and peace---best studies.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "No one has challenged the multiple reports that contractualist economy is the strongest nontrivial predictor of peace both within (Mousseau, 2012b) and between nations (Mousseau, 2013; see also Nieman, 2015). The only matter in controversy is whether democracy has any impact on peace after consideration of contractualist economy. I investigated all five reasons offered in the literature (excluding already-refuted arguments) to think democracy causes peace, and found no support for any of them. The correlation of democracy with peace is zero regardless of how contractualist economy or interstate conflict is measured; the disaggregation of the data yields no support for a causal interaction of democracy with contractualist economy, and the state of knowledge offers no evidence of causation from democracy to contractualist economy and peace. While some correlation of democracy with peace appears in analyses of all disputes (at the 0.10 level), this appears to be a statistical artifact, since democracy is near zero in analyses of wars, fatal-only disputes (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a, 2013 and above), and militarized crises (Mousseau et al., 2013a, b). Analyses of all-disputes are less accurate than those of fatal disputes and crises because they are more likely to include events that are not state-to-state confrontations, and more likely to under-report events occurring in clientelist dyads. We saw that clientelist democracies tend to be geographically dispersed, and this may account for the non-fatal peace, which does not exist in bordering dyads where everyone has an equal chance to fight. The non-fatal correlation of democracy with peace is also marginal, as we saw in Table 4 that it includes only 27% of dyads and only 50% of joint-democratic dyads. This study largely investigated unsupported assertions of fact and showed them to lack support: neither DOR nor Ray (2013) properly supported their claims that multiple imputation, the treatment of ongoing dispute years, an interaction, the adoption of an alternative measure for contractualist economy, or reverse causality actually restore the evidence for the democratic peace. In this way this study merely corroborated what was already the state of knowledge, and it would be a mistake to think there are continuing factual differences in this controversy. I cannot promise that the analyses herein are error free, and I fully expect defenders of the democratic peace to carefully scrutinize them for errors, but no claim of error should be perceived as resurrecting the correlation of democracy with peace unless it is also shown to change results. Nor has anyone disputed the overturning of the democratic peace as reported in two studies (Mousseau, 2009, 2012a). While DOR (205) assert that the analyses in Mousseau (2009) are based on a misinterpreted interaction term, there is no such interaction term in Mousseau (2009). The only evidence-based defense of the democratic peace that exists today comes from DOR’s 120 regressions, 101 of which are invalid. Of the 19 valid ones, only 15 are of fatal disputes that count, and every one of these 15 regressions is mired by one of two questionable practices: five include control for the DemocracyH term that is said to artificially inflate the democracy coefficient; 10 are irrelevant because they include the inconsequential interaction term additionally calculated at the misleading 75th percentile of contractualist economy. If there is a correlation of democracy with peace, why cannot this be shown in a clear-cut regression? Beyond the facts, scientific assessment calls for acknowledgment of the imbalance of theory in this controversy. Economic norms theory does not deny the correlation of democracy with peace, and thus all prior evidence for it; rather, it offers a specific and falsifiable explanation for the correlation that identifies it as spurious. Defenders of the democratic peace are not putting forth a competing explanation for the correlation; rather, they simply oppose the idea that democracy does not independently cause peace, with no reason given for this opposition. However, democracy is not a random variable, so there are no scientific grounds that prohibit us from seeking to explain it, and there are no scientific grounds that preclude that whatever explains democracy cannot also explain the peace. Causality, not statistics, lies at the core of this controversy, and causality cannot be directly seen: it can only be theorized and corroborated. Yet defenders of the democratic peace have not addressed any of the extensive corroborations of economic norms theory accrued in studies of civil conflict and insurgency (Mousseau, 2012b), terrorism (Meierrieks 2012; Boehmer and Daube, 2013; Krieger and Meierrieks, 2015), democratization (Aytacx et al., 2016), and human rights (Mousseau and Mousseau, 2008). The weight of evidence for economic norms theory overwhelms any theory of democracy causing peace (Ungerer, 2012), yet defenders of the proposition have sought only to report some statistically significant correlation of democracy with peace, as if correlation equals causation (Dafoe, 2011; Dafoe and Russett, 2013; DOR; Ray, 2013; Russett, 2010). Nor is there any scientific basis for concluding that this controversy is ultimately unresolvable because the factors are closely related, as is frequently asserted without support (e.g. DOR: 203). The relevant factors are not closely related: contractualist economy is only moderately correlated with trade interdependence (0.31), income (0.71/0.56), and democracy (0.47) (Mousseau, 2013: 191–193). That contractualist nations are almost always democratic does not mean that democratic nations are almost always contractualist, and the majority 57% of democracies had clientelist economies from 1950 to 2010. The notion that democracy, market development, and trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance, and ignorance cannot justify discarding, after the fact, our carefully constructed measures and datasets.13 The implications of this study are far from trivial: the democratic peace, defined as democracy causing peace, lacks the evidentiary core on which it is based; the observation of democratic peace is best explained by contract norms. If our field is to abide by scientific rules of evidence, then our scholars must stop describing democracy as a ‘‘known’’ cause, or correlate, of peace, and we must stop tossing in a variable for democracy, willy-nilly, in quantitative analyses of international conflict. The variable to replace it is contractualist economy, which not only subsumes democracy but is now the most powerful non-trivial factor in the study of international conflict, whose impact is more than 10 times that which we once thought democracy had. No historical study is immune to criticism, but the progress of knowledge will not be furthered with another (third) round of ardently asserted claims of error that are not shown to change results. I understand the prior view of democratic peace is known and intuitive and the contractualist peace is less so, and unsupported assertions are enough for many to believe in already-known claims. However, the purpose of science is to promote rather than stifle innovation, and to differentiate good ideas from bad ones. Better yet are new ideas that can help make the world a better place, and economic norms theory is clear on that: if the wealthy market-oriented nations wish to advance democracy and peace around the world, the way to do that is to promote economic opportunity.\n\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "correlation of democracy with peace is zero\ndata yields no support for a causal interaction\ndemocracies tend to be\ndispersed\naccount for\nnon-fatal peace\nonly evidence\ncomes from\n120 regressions, 101 of which are invalid\nonly 15 are\nfatal\nand every one of these\nis mired by\nquestionable practices\ndefenders\nhave not addressed\ncorroborations of economic norms\nThe notion that democracy\nand trade are synonymous is rooted in ignorance", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 5---the legal system will exclude other protections unrelated to the aff.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The more pluralized image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents of personhood in differing degrees – might also be relevant for legal approaches to other non-humans. One could imagine that, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need (such as the protection of bodily integrity). Contrarily, the legal platform of natural objects that are vulnerable to human influence might need to encompass only the procedural incidents of personhood in order to secure their effectiveness. Hence, for other non-human entities, different roads towards better protection could be envisioned (potentially by drafting other alternative pyramids), contributing to a further pluralization of law. The portrayal of the legal sphere as populated by entities that possess rights and incidents in differing degrees (as opposed to a select group of persons with rights in opposition to mere objects) fits well with the recent realization that we are living in the Anthropocene, in which the dialectical binary divisions that are based upon the opposition of nature versus culture are no longer tenable. \n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents of personhood in differing degrees – might also be relevant for legal approaches to other non-humans. One could imagine that, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need (such as the protection of bodily integrity).\nThe portrayal of the legal sphere as populated by entities that possess rights and incidents in differing degrees (as opposed to a select group of persons with rights in opposition to mere objects) fits well with the recent realization that we are living in the Anthropocene, in which the dialectical binary divisions that are based upon the opposition of nature versus culture are no longer tenable.", "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: 5---the legal system will exclude other protections unrelated to the aff.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents of personhood in differing degrees – might also be relevant for legal approaches to other non-humans. One could imagine that, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need (such as the protection of bodily integrity).\nThe portrayal of the legal sphere as populated by entities that possess rights and incidents in differing degrees (as opposed to a select group of persons with rights in opposition to mere objects) fits well with the recent realization that we are living in the Anthropocene, in which the dialectical binary divisions that are based upon the opposition of nature versus culture are no longer tenable.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the legal sphere\nconsisting of a range of\nlegal entities that hold\npersonhood in differing degrees\nrelevant for\na\ni\nstatus\nencompasses\nincidents of legal personhood\nwhile excluding\nfundamental protections\nhumans\nneed\nlegal sphere\npopulated by entities that possess rights\nin differing degrees (", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Ukraine for sure thumps.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nBut Ukraine is not a singular case. And its sobering experience with the Budapest Memorandum and Russian invasion is not lost on both US allies and adversaries. Witness the recent decision by Finnish and Swedish governments, after reviewing their security posture in the aftermath of the Ukraine crisis, to abandon their long-cherished neutrality and apply for NATO membership. Similarly motivated Denmark, already a veteran NATO member, has also just decided in a national referendum to reverse course and terminate its EU security and defense op-out. And Germany, which as a leading NATO member has long benefitted from NATOs security guarantees and a US nuclear tripwire, was shocked enough by the Ukrainian crisis not merely to dramatically increase its defense budget but also end its long procrastination on renewing an aging fleet of dual-use nuclear delivery aircraft.\nNow consider the impact on US adversaries like Iran and North Korea. They are bound to feel vindicated in their reluctance to contemplate any serious concessions in their nuclear pursuits. After all, they have long focused on the contrast between the fates of Muammar Khadafy and Saddam Hussein who lost their regimes and heads to foreign “aggression” once they gave up on their nuclear weapons programs, and that of Kim Jung Un (and his dynastic ancestors) who were able to save both by holding on to their prized nuclear possessions. Going forward then, we can be confidently surmise that neither harsh sanctions nor soft external security “assurances” would lure them to relinquish their nuclear assets. In fact, they may even feel compelled under the current circumstances to expand their nuclear holdings both to better protect themselves and to enhance their diplomatic clout.\nIn between is a third group of states, those that have thus far held back (or walked back) nuclear weapons program but may now be inclined to reconsider in light of a growing sense of vulnerability to attack or blackmail—especially those increasingly feeling threatened by the likes of China (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Australia immediately come to mind) or Iran (the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia all the way to Egypt and Turkey) or Russia (the Baltic states as well as Poland). The United States and NATO are working with many of them to bolster their security. But most of these efforts are proving increasingly challenging to sustain, let alone scale up, when the US acutely feels both resource constraints and diminished political appetite for overseas commitments. It’s no surprise then to see the ever-growing public support in South Korea for either positioning of US nuclear weapons on its soil or acquiring an independent nuclear capability to hold at bay both North Korea and China.\nSanctions have historically been another potent tool the United States uses to dissuade adversaries and proliferators and reassure allies. But this much overused instrument is no longer proving either credible or comprehensive enough to impress on others that the United States masters both the resolve and the ability to fundamentally alter their and their adversaries’ cost-benefit calculus. Clearly, sanctions could not dissuade Russia from encroaching on any of its near abroad, dissuade Chinese militarization of the South China seas or terminate its intimidation of Taiwan, or reassure Ukraine about its future independence, let alone its territorial integrity. Just as crippling sanctions imposed on Iran in 2018 under the so-called Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy have failed to constrain Iranian nuclear advances, similarly intense pressure—reinforced by lofty promises of aid—could not whet North Korea’s appetite to reverse nuclear course.\nConventional arms transfer has also been frequently used by the US to stem proliferation by enhancing the confidence in and capacity of other states to defend themselves, by themselves, and in the process raise the price tag their aggressors will have to pay for taking them on. As is the case with Ukraine, such transfers are bound to remain a valuable tool in this arsenal, but their limitations are also now palpable. Conventional weapons by themselves have never possessed—even in the rare cases when they could be fielded affordably, in large quantity and quality—the unique ability to reassure and focus the minds the way nuclear weapons do. Endowing arms supplies with more cachet requires deployment of US troops as a “tripwire,” which brings us back to Washington’s reticence to undertake new such commitments.\nThis all adds up to a remarkably somber assessment of what the future holds in store. The United States, its European allies, and even a handful of others—such as those Ukraine now turns to provide it with fresh security guarantees, all the way from Poland, Turkey, and Canada to Israel—now have to agonize over how far they are able and willing to go to reassure other parties. Even in the unlikely event that a US administration would assume firmer new collective security commitments toward any additional party or parties, their value would be weakened by the uncertainty and delay in getting these ratified by the US Senate. This is not to mention the reawakened cache of isolationist/libertarian tendencies in the United States accompanied by explicit sympathy of some leading US political figures toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. This reality deprives the US of the sole mechanisms to endow its political commitments with congressional imprimatur that might provide others with some confidence about their endurance over time. But even if the Senate could be miraculously brought along to sanction new security treaties, their value appears uncertain, when presidents can unilaterally withdraw the United States at will even from binding commitments, as presidents of both parties have repeatedly done over time, as evidenced by US withdrawals from the Anti-Ballistic Missile, Open Skies, and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties.\nThe problem with future security guarantees is not confined to political will to assume or sustain them; it goes further, to the capacity to deliver. The challenge of confronting and prevailing over ever more impressive Chinese military capabilities looks daunting, when considering how it increasingly challenge US supremacy not just in key classical conventional and nuclear area but also in cyberspace and more recently space as well. Emblematic of the situation is the growing anxiety on both Washington and Taipei about the credibility of US deterrence of Chinese aggression against Taiwan. If one further allows for the realistic prospect that Russia and China would extend further their collaboration in challenging US supremacy, while much of the rest of the world opts to sit on the sidelines, then the appetite to take on either of them on would be further diminished not only for the typically circumspect and divided Europeans but also for the presumably single-minded United States. This reticence is likely to be further reinforced by repeated demonstrations of the capacity of significantly inferior forces (such as those of Ukraine, Iran, and even Hezbollah) to exact a heavy cost from their foes should they be required to honor their security guarantees.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Ukraine is not a singular case. And its sobering experience with the Budapest Memorandum and Russian invasion is not lost on both US allies and adversaries.\nDenmark, already a veteran NATO member, has also just decided in a national referendum to reverse course and terminate its EU security and defense op-out.\nIn between is a third group of states, those that have thus far held back\nnuclear weapons program but may now be inclined to reconsider in light of a growing sense of vulnerability to attack or blackmail—especially those increasingly feeling threatened by the likes of China\nTaiwan\nJapan\nSouth Korea, and Australia immediately come to mind\nor Iran\nGulf states\nSaudi Arabia\nEgypt\nTurkey\nBaltic states as well as Poland\nThe United States and NATO are working with many of them to bolster their security. But most of these efforts are proving increasingly challenging to sustain, let alone scale up, when the US acutely feels both resource constraints and diminished political appetite for overseas commitments.\nThis all adds up to a remarkably somber assessment of what the future holds in store.\nnew collective security commitments toward any additional party or parties\nvalue would be weakened by the uncertainty and delay in getting these ratified by the US Senate.\nThe problem with future security guarantees is not confined to political will to assume or sustain them; it goes further, to the capacity to deliver.\nEmblematic of the situation is the growing anxiety on both Washington and Taipei about the credibility of US deterrence of Chinese aggression against Taiwan.\nThis reticence is likely to be further reinforced by repeated demonstrations of the capacity of significantly inferior forces\nto exact a heavy cost from their foes should they be required to honor their security guarantees", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Ukraine for sure thumps.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Ukraine is not a singular case. And its sobering experience with the Budapest Memorandum and Russian invasion is not lost on both US allies and adversaries.\nDenmark, already a veteran NATO member, has also just decided in a national referendum to reverse course and terminate its EU security and defense op-out.\nIn between is a third group of states, those that have thus far held back\nnuclear weapons program but may now be inclined to reconsider in light of a growing sense of vulnerability to attack or blackmail—especially those increasingly feeling threatened by the likes of China\nTaiwan\nJapan\nSouth Korea, and Australia immediately come to mind\nor Iran\nGulf states\nSaudi Arabia\nEgypt\nTurkey\nBaltic states as well as Poland\nThe United States and NATO are working with many of them to bolster their security. But most of these efforts are proving increasingly challenging to sustain, let alone scale up, when the US acutely feels both resource constraints and diminished political appetite for overseas commitments.\nThis all adds up to a remarkably somber assessment of what the future holds in store.\nnew collective security commitments toward any additional party or parties\nvalue would be weakened by the uncertainty and delay in getting these ratified by the US Senate.\nThe problem with future security guarantees is not confined to political will to assume or sustain them; it goes further, to the capacity to deliver.\nEmblematic of the situation is the growing anxiety on both Washington and Taipei about the credibility of US deterrence of Chinese aggression against Taiwan.\nThis reticence is likely to be further reinforced by repeated demonstrations of the capacity of significantly inferior forces\nto exact a heavy cost from their foes should they be required to honor their security guarantees", "role": "user" }, { "content": "sobering experience\nveteran NATO member\nreverse course\nheld back\nTaiwan\nJapan\nSouth Korea\nAustralia\nGulf states\nSaudi Arabia\nEgypt\nTurkey\nBaltic states\nPoland\nworking with many\nbolster their security\nresource constraints\ndiminished political appetite\nsomber assessment\nnew\nuncertainty\ndelay\nsecurity guarantees\nanxiety\ncredibility of US deterrence\ncapacity\nsignificantly inferior forces\nheavy cost", "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: Ukraine for sure thumps.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Ukraine is not a singular case. And its sobering experience with the Budapest Memorandum and Russian invasion is not lost on both US allies and adversaries.\nDenmark, already a veteran NATO member, has also just decided in a national referendum to reverse course and terminate its EU security and defense op-out.\nIn between is a third group of states, those that have thus far held back\nnuclear weapons program but may now be inclined to reconsider in light of a growing sense of vulnerability to attack or blackmail—especially those increasingly feeling threatened by the likes of China\nTaiwan\nJapan\nSouth Korea, and Australia immediately come to mind\nor Iran\nGulf states\nSaudi Arabia\nEgypt\nTurkey\nBaltic states as well as Poland\nThe United States and NATO are working with many of them to bolster their security. But most of these efforts are proving increasingly challenging to sustain, let alone scale up, when the US acutely feels both resource constraints and diminished political appetite for overseas commitments.\nThis all adds up to a remarkably somber assessment of what the future holds in store.\nnew collective security commitments toward any additional party or parties\nvalue would be weakened by the uncertainty and delay in getting these ratified by the US Senate.\nThe problem with future security guarantees is not confined to political will to assume or sustain them; it goes further, to the capacity to deliver.\nEmblematic of the situation is the growing anxiety on both Washington and Taipei about the credibility of US deterrence of Chinese aggression against Taiwan.\nThis reticence is likely to be further reinforced by repeated demonstrations of the capacity of significantly inferior forces\nto exact a heavy cost from their foes should they be required to honor their security guarantees", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Ukraine\nnot lost on\nallies\nstates\nhave\nheld back\nnuc\ns\nbut\nnow\nreconsider\nespecially\nTaiwan\nJapan\nSo\nKo\nAustralia\nGulf states\nSaudi\nEgypt\nTurkey\nBaltic\ns as well as Poland\ncommitments\nvalue\nweakened by\nuncertainty and delay\n.\nproblem with\nguarantees\nnot confined to political will\ngoes\nto the capacity to deliver.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Voting negative endorses a global systems paradigm – it’s the only way to generate a fuller understanding of African diaspora.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In his excellent survey of indentured labor in the age of imperialism, David Northrup emphasized the need to view the movement of millions of indentured workers throughout and beyond the colonial plantation world not only in the context of its times, but also as a global system that invites comparison with the great European migrations of the day and age.93 Even a cursory survey of published scholarship since the appearance of Northrup’s book almost 20 years ago reveals, however, that indentured labor studies remain hobbled by a failure to examine the indentured experience in well-developed local, regional, global and comparative contexts. This historiographical inertia may be traced to various factors: the continuing dominance of the Tinkerian ‘new system of slavery’ paradigm in both scholarly and public discourse about indentured labor; a corresponding propensity to view this system’s origins largely, if not exclusively, through the prism of an Atlantic-centric abolitionism in which the 1834 emancipation of slaves in the British Empire has acquired iconic status; and an Indo-centrism that distracts attention from or obscures work on other indentured populations. Northrup’s comments about the origins of the indentured labor trade echo these historiographical preoccupations:\nDespite the existence of a few earlier experiments, it is fair to say that the new indentured labor trade arose in direct response to the abolition of slavery in the colonies of Great Britain in the 1830s and to its subsequent abolition or decline in French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies.94\nRecent research on free and forced labor migration in the Indian Ocean reveals that the early experiments to which Northrup referred were, however, neither few in number nor marginally important to understanding the indentured labor system’s origins and subsequent development. This research highlights, moreover, that these experiments occurred in a truly global setting that stretched from the Caribbean to the South Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and China. That this was so should come as no surprise given recent scholarship on the trans-imperial movement of ideas, personnel and news with the British Empire, especially during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.95 As P.J. Marshall has trenchantly observed, if there were significant differences between the British experience in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean worlds, there were also significant similarities between these two components of a single imperial entity.96 Compelling work on the impact that public knowledge about and perceptions of empire had on British politics and identity underscores this point.97 So do astute assessments of the limitations inherent in oceanic basin approaches to studying labor migration and maritime history.98 Insights provided by the emerging field of global labor history, including case studies such as Jan Lucassen’s examination of the VOC’s role in the emergence of an international labor market which connected Europe with southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, further illustrate the need for indentured labor historians to transcend the conceptual parochialism that inhibits the development of a much fuller understanding of this post-emancipation labor system in all of its complexity.99 The challenge before us is, accordingly, to probe much more deeply and perceptively into the ways in which the complex dialog within and between these oceanic worlds shaped the nature and dynamics of a global migrant labor system, the legacy of which continues to resonate in our own day and age.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Northrup emphasized the need to view the movement of millions of indentured workers throughout and beyond the colonial plantation world\nalso as a global system\nindentured labor studies remain hobbled by a failure to examine the indentured experience in well-developed local, regional, global and comparative contexts. This historiographical inertia may be traced to\nthe continuing dominance of the\nslavery’ paradigm in both scholarly and public discourse\n; a corresponding propensity to view this system’s origins largely, if not exclusively, through the prism of\n Atlantic-centric\nslaves\nthe new indentured labor trade arose in direct response to the abolition of slavery in the colonies\nRecent research on\nthe Indian Ocean reveals that the early experiments to which Northrup referred were, however, neither few in number nor marginally important to understanding the indentured labor system’s origins and subsequent development\nthese experiments occurred in a truly global setting that stretched from the Caribbean to the South Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and China\nthe emergence of an international labor market which connected Europe with southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, further illustrate the need for indentured labor historians to transcend the conceptual parochialism that inhibits the development of a much fuller understanding of this\nlabor system in all of its complexity\nThe challenge\nis\nto probe much more deeply and perceptively into the ways in which the complex dialog within and between these oceanic worlds shaped the nature and dynamics of a global migrant labor system, the legacy of which continues to resonate in our own day and age", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Voting negative endorses a global systems paradigm – it’s the only way to generate a fuller understanding of African diaspora.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Northrup emphasized the need to view the movement of millions of indentured workers throughout and beyond the colonial plantation world\nalso as a global system\nindentured labor studies remain hobbled by a failure to examine the indentured experience in well-developed local, regional, global and comparative contexts. This historiographical inertia may be traced to\nthe continuing dominance of the\nslavery’ paradigm in both scholarly and public discourse\n; a corresponding propensity to view this system’s origins largely, if not exclusively, through the prism of\n Atlantic-centric\nslaves\nthe new indentured labor trade arose in direct response to the abolition of slavery in the colonies\nRecent research on\nthe Indian Ocean reveals that the early experiments to which Northrup referred were, however, neither few in number nor marginally important to understanding the indentured labor system’s origins and subsequent development\nthese experiments occurred in a truly global setting that stretched from the Caribbean to the South Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and China\nthe emergence of an international labor market which connected Europe with southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, further illustrate the need for indentured labor historians to transcend the conceptual parochialism that inhibits the development of a much fuller understanding of this\nlabor system in all of its complexity\nThe challenge\nis\nto probe much more deeply and perceptively into the ways in which the complex dialog within and between these oceanic worlds shaped the nature and dynamics of a global migrant labor system, the legacy of which continues to resonate in our own day and age", "role": "user" }, { "content": "also as a global system\nfailure\ncontinuing dominance\nslavery’ paradigm\nscholarly and public discourse\nAtlantic-centric\nindentured labor trade arose\nglobal setting\nmuch fuller understanding of this\nlabor system in all of its complexity\nprobe much more deeply and perceptively", "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: Voting negative endorses a global systems paradigm – it’s the only way to generate a fuller understanding of African diaspora.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Northrup emphasized the need to view the movement of millions of indentured workers throughout and beyond the colonial plantation world\nalso as a global system\nindentured labor studies remain hobbled by a failure to examine the indentured experience in well-developed local, regional, global and comparative contexts. This historiographical inertia may be traced to\nthe continuing dominance of the\nslavery’ paradigm in both scholarly and public discourse\n; a corresponding propensity to view this system’s origins largely, if not exclusively, through the prism of\n Atlantic-centric\nslaves\nthe new indentured labor trade arose in direct response to the abolition of slavery in the colonies\nRecent research on\nthe Indian Ocean reveals that the early experiments to which Northrup referred were, however, neither few in number nor marginally important to understanding the indentured labor system’s origins and subsequent development\nthese experiments occurred in a truly global setting that stretched from the Caribbean to the South Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and China\nthe emergence of an international labor market which connected Europe with southern Africa and South and Southeast Asia, further illustrate the need for indentured labor historians to transcend the conceptual parochialism that inhibits the development of a much fuller understanding of this\nlabor system in all of its complexity\nThe challenge\nis\nto probe much more deeply and perceptively into the ways in which the complex dialog within and between these oceanic worlds shaped the nature and dynamics of a global migrant labor system, the legacy of which continues to resonate in our own day and age", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Northrup emphasized the need to view the movemen\nas a global system\nindentured labor studies remain hobbled by a failure to examine\nin\ncomparative contexts. This historiographical inertia may be traced to\ncontinuing dominance of the\nslavery’ paradigm\nthe new indentured labor trade arose in direct response to the abolition of slavery\nRecent research on\nthe Indian Ocean reveals\nearly experiments\nwhich\nneither few in number nor marginally important to understanding the indentured labor system’s origins\nemergence of an international labor market\nconnected Europe with southern Africa\nand Southeast Asia", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: AND artificially discounts potential for backsliding and superior durability of amendments.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "C Strauss’s Whig Theory of Constitutional Change\nBut let us concede, for the sake of argument, that informal channels for constitutional change would have developed.28 We are then faced with another of Strauss's troubling assumptions: that constitutional change advances, uninterrupted, toward whatever progressive norms that we have heretofore relied on amendments to install in the Constitution-racial equality, full political participation for women and eighteen-year-olds, and the elimination of barriers to full enfranchisement for the poor and other minorities.29 In Strauss's world, there is no reaction, no backlash that forestalls future gains (perhaps placing them out of reach), and no backsliding by courts or legislatures. Again and again, he assures us that whatever gains were secured by amendment were already secured in large part or would have been in due time, amendment or not. 30 But often these assertions are made on his own authority, and he does not entertain the possibility that circumstances would have intervened that slowed change, or reversed its direction. Even in the case of a failed amendment, one might argue that by putting the change sought on the Nation's political agenda, the amendment's proponents acted as a catalyst for that change, which, in the absence of an amending mechanism, would not have otherwise progressed in the same way.\nStrauss also ignores the inherently unstable nature of informal change. Congress may pass laws, but those laws are subject to repeal (or presidential veto). Executive orders may be rescinded. Court decisions may be overruled, distinguished, or ignored. And so on. Consider the New Deal. David Kyvig contrasts Reconstruction with the New Deal by noting the absence of any trace left by the latter in the text of the Constitution. 32 If Strauss's theory is correct, one would have expected that the Supreme Court's federalism decisions during the 1990s (and early 2000s) would have encountered more resistance from a public that had demanded substantial changes to the small-c-constitution effected after 1937. 33 Yet it is precisely because the New Deal did not enshrine its changes in the Constitution that change was provisional and subject to yet more change in the future. 34", "role": "user" }, { "content": "We are\nfaced with another of Strauss's troubling assumptions: that constitutional change advances, uninterrupted, toward whatever progressive norms that we\nrelied on amendments to install in the Constitution\nIn Strauss's world, there is no reaction, no backlash that forestalls future gains\nand no backsliding by courts or legislatures\nthese assertions are made on his own authority, and he does not entertain the possibility that circumstances would have intervened that slowed change, or reversed its direction. Even in the case of a failed amendment\nby putting the change\non the Nation's political agenda, the amendment's proponents acted as a catalyst for\nchange, which, in the absence of an amending mechanism, would not have otherwise progressed\nStrauss\nignores the inherently unstable nature of informal change. Congress may pass laws, but those laws are subject to repeal\nExecutive orders may be rescinded. Court decisions may be overruled, distinguished, or ignored\nIf Strauss's theory is correct, one would have expected\nthe Supreme Court's\ndecisions\nwould have encountered more resistance\nit is precisely because the New Deal did not enshrine its changes in the Constitution that change was provisional and subject to\nmore change in the 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: AND artificially discounts potential for backsliding and superior durability of amendments.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "We are\nfaced with another of Strauss's troubling assumptions: that constitutional change advances, uninterrupted, toward whatever progressive norms that we\nrelied on amendments to install in the Constitution\nIn Strauss's world, there is no reaction, no backlash that forestalls future gains\nand no backsliding by courts or legislatures\nthese assertions are made on his own authority, and he does not entertain the possibility that circumstances would have intervened that slowed change, or reversed its direction. Even in the case of a failed amendment\nby putting the change\non the Nation's political agenda, the amendment's proponents acted as a catalyst for\nchange, which, in the absence of an amending mechanism, would not have otherwise progressed\nStrauss\nignores the inherently unstable nature of informal change. Congress may pass laws, but those laws are subject to repeal\nExecutive orders may be rescinded. Court decisions may be overruled, distinguished, or ignored\nIf Strauss's theory is correct, one would have expected\nthe Supreme Court's\ndecisions\nwould have encountered more resistance\nit is precisely because the New Deal did not enshrine its changes in the Constitution that change was provisional and subject to\nmore change in the future", "role": "user" }, { "content": "troubling assumptions\nuninterrupted\nwhatever\namendments\ninstall\nno reaction\nno backlash\nforestalls future gains\nbacksliding\ncourts\nlegislatures\nassertions\nown authority\nintervened\nslowed change\nreversed its direction\nfailed amendment\npolitical agenda\ncatalyst\nin the absence\namending mechanism\notherwise progressed\nignores\ninherently unstable\ninformal change\npass laws\nrepeal\nrescinded\noverruled\ndistinguished\nignored\ncorrect\nmore resistance\nprecisely because\nenshrine\nprovisional\nmore change", "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: AND artificially discounts potential for backsliding and superior durability of amendments.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "We are\nfaced with another of Strauss's troubling assumptions: that constitutional change advances, uninterrupted, toward whatever progressive norms that we\nrelied on amendments to install in the Constitution\nIn Strauss's world, there is no reaction, no backlash that forestalls future gains\nand no backsliding by courts or legislatures\nthese assertions are made on his own authority, and he does not entertain the possibility that circumstances would have intervened that slowed change, or reversed its direction. Even in the case of a failed amendment\nby putting the change\non the Nation's political agenda, the amendment's proponents acted as a catalyst for\nchange, which, in the absence of an amending mechanism, would not have otherwise progressed\nStrauss\nignores the inherently unstable nature of informal change. Congress may pass laws, but those laws are subject to repeal\nExecutive orders may be rescinded. Court decisions may be overruled, distinguished, or ignored\nIf Strauss's theory is correct, one would have expected\nthe Supreme Court's\ndecisions\nwould have encountered more resistance\nit is precisely because the New Deal did not enshrine its changes in the Constitution that change was provisional and subject to\nmore change in the future", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Strauss's\nassumptions: that\nchange advances, uninterrupted\nthere is no reaction, no backlash that forestalls\ngains\nand no backsliding by\nlegislatures\nthese assertions are made on his\nauthority\nEven in\na failed amendment\nby putting\nchange\non the\nagenda, the amendment's\nacted as a catalyst\nStrauss\nignores the\nunstable nature of informal change\nlaws\nare subject to repeal\nmay be rescinded\noverruled, distinguished, or ignored\nit is\nbecause the New Deal did not enshrine\nthe Constitution that change was provisional and subject to\nmore", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The opioid epidemic causes rainforest deforestation—harm reduction is key.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "[Kaleigh, \"America's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest,\" Vice, 4-26-17, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3d9d8y/americas-opioid-epidemic-is-destroying-the-rainforest, accessed 5-30-20]\n\nAmerica's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\nNarco-deforestation has been a long recognized phenomenon, but a growing heroin market is adding extra strain.\nThe jungles in Guatemala's northern reaches are some of the most biodiverse forests north of the Amazon. They're one of the last remaining homes for jaguars, tapirs, and scarlet macaws. And they're being systematically destroyed.\nThere are a number of factors that contribute to deforestation in Guatemala, but the impact of drug trafficking has had a measurable effect. Drug traffickers set up shop in the region, grabbing up land and tearing down trees to build landing strips for airplanes, or to set up farms, which they use to launder money. Narco-deforestation, as it's known, has long been a problem, but America's opioid epidemic is almost certainly making it worse.\nIt's a link that hasn't yet been made by researchers, but data from conservation, drug policy, and health literature add up to a compelling indication that our addiction to painkillers is playing a role in the destruction of this precious ecosystem.\nWidespread addiction to opioid painkillers like OxyContin has expanded the US market for heroin, which is almost identical chemically to prescription opioids. Heroin is also usually cheaper than pills, can be more readily available, and is more potent. With more demand for heroin in the US, drug cartels in Central and South America have even more incentive to continue tearing down the rainforests, and statistics show that deforestation has continued to climb right along pace with our growing appetite for heroin.\nI first learned about this connection during a reporting trip to central Guatemala. Fascinated by the networks at play influencing the opioid epidemic in the US, I was curious if it had had any impact in Central America. So one afternoon, while driving to visit some indigenous midwives in the hilly, bucolic Tecpán region, I turned to my interpreter to ask if she knew whether the drug trade had changed at all in recent years.\nShe nodded emphatically, telling me it's \"gotten worse,\" and that drug cartels in the north of the country were \"chopping down the rainforest.\"\n\"Is it just cocaine?\" I asked her.\n\"Cocaine,\" she acknowledged. \"But heroin, too.\"\nBetween 1990 and 2005, 17 percent of Guatemala's total forest cover was torn down—a loss of roughly half a million hectares of trees—according to the European Space Agency, which tracks deforestation using satellite imagery. It's continued at a similar pace since then, particularly in the ecologically vulnerable rainforest areas, where an increase in drug trafficking coincided with as much as 10 percent forest loss between 2006 and 2010, according to study published in Science.\nAnd it's only getting worse.\n\"It hasn't slowed down in the last four years,\" said Matthew Taylor, a professor of geography and the environment at the University of Denver, who has studied the impacts of drug trafficking on the environment. \"From speaking with my sources and from evidence from being in the field, it's increasing.\"\nThough agriculture and logging account for a large portion of this deforestation in Central and South America, the narco-deforestation has played a significant role, too. The actual cultivation of drugs like cocaine and heroin has an impact: The Organization of American States estimates that 2.5 million hectares of Amazonian forest in Peru have been destroyed to grow coca, while more than 1 million hectares of forest in Colombia have been culled to grow illicit drugs, including opium poppies for heroin.\nBut in Central America, the drug-related deforestation is caused instead by all of the activities surrounding the trafficking side of the supply chain, according to Kendra McSweeney, the study author and a professor of geography at Ohio State University.\n\"[Traffickers] need a lot of land through which to move drugs,\" McSweeney told me. \"In order to secure those routes, they like to buy up the land and cut forests for landing planes, landing boats, unloading, reloading, and driving out by car.\"\nDrug cartels also buy land and cut down forests to establish cattle ranches, which make handy businesses through which to launder money, McSweeney explained. It also gives them a diversification option: If the drug route gets cracked down, they still own the land, which they can sell off for major profits, since the original sale is usually made under duress (you can't really negotiate real estate prices with a drug cartel).\nThese methods are causing increased deforestation, particularly in some of the most vulnerable ecological regions, McSweeney said. She and other researchers estimate that the drug trade is responsible for at least 30 percent of all deforestation in Central America, but as much as 50 percent in some regions—including Guatemala's northern rainforests, located in the Petén department.\nThese drug trafficking organizations aren't dealing strictly in heroin. Cocaine is the biggest product by far, and they also dabble in marijuana farming and even cooking methamphetamine. But in recent years, heroin has become a growing export from Central America, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which reported that heroin seizures at the US-Mexico border more than doubled between 2010 and 2015.\nMuch of the heroin is coming directly from Mexico, but the DEA also reports that heroin coming into the US is produced in Guatemala and Colombia, and trafficked through networks across Central America. It's difficult to pin down exactly how much of these cartels' business is heroin, but it's clearly playing a role.\n\"What is and is not run by those groups is obviously not something that's public information,\" said Ben Hodgdon, the global director of forestry at the Rainforest Alliance, an NGO that works to preserve forest biodiversity. \"But these are criminal organizations that are tied up with trafficking any number of different narcotics, so I think it's reasonable to highlight some kind of link.\"\nAt the same time this drug trafficking-related deforestation was ramping up in Central America, the market for heroin in the United States was exploding. Between 2001 and 2013, the use of heroin in the United States increased five-fold, according to a recent study. That means that by 2013, approximately 3.8 million US adults had used heroin at some point in their lifetime.\nThe Centers for Disease Control says that heroin use in the US has increased across practically all demographics. It has more than doubled in young adults ages 18-25, and heroin overdose deaths are also on the rise. By 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths had nearly quadrupled the rate from 2002, with more than 8,200 people overdosing in 2013. In 2015, opioid overdose deaths surpassed gun homicide deaths in America for the first time in history.\nNot all painkiller addicts go on to use heroin, but studies show a significant amount of new heroin users have previously abused prescription opioids. Between 75 and 80 percent of new heroin users have previously abused painkillers, and individuals addicted to prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin. We call it the opioid epidemic, instead of the OxyContin epidemic, because this scourge goes beyond prescription pills.\nAll of these factors add up to a disturbing conclusion: Our widespread abuse of prescription painkillers has led thousands of Americans who never would have used heroin to become addicted to the narcotic. This has driven up the demand for heroin, giving drug traffickers across Central and South America a bigger market to fill, and more means to continue their systematic destruction of some of the most unique and valuable ecosystems on the planet.\n\"These are totally dynamics made in the USA, no question,\" McSweeney told me.\nThe experts I spoke to all said there are ways we can curb this destruction. McSweeney believes that steering drug policy in the US away from prohibition toward recovery and abuse reduction would ease a lot of the impacts on biodiversity conservation. Hodgson advocated for working to help local communities reclaim land rights in ancestral lands—his research shows drug cartels tend to steer clear of forest that's already occupied.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "America's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\nThe jungles in Guatemala\nare some of the most biodiverse\ndrug trafficking has had a measurable effect\nDrug traffickers\ngrab\nup land and tear\ndown trees\nour addiction to painkillers is playing a role in the destruction of this precious ecosystem.\nWidespread addiction to opioid\ns\nexpanded the US market for heroin\nWith more demand for heroin in the US, drug cartels in Central and South America have even more incentive to continue tearing down the rainforests\nstatistics show\ndeforestation has continued to climb right along pace with our growing appetite for heroin.\nTraffickers\nneed a lot of land through which to move drugs\nto secure those routes, they\nbuy up the land and cut forests\nThese methods are causing increased deforestation, particularly in some of the most vulnerable ecological regions\nthe drug trade is responsible for at least 30 percent of all deforestation in Central America, but as much as 50 percent in some regions\nsystematic destruction of some of the most unique and valuable ecosystems on the planet\nThese are totally dynamics made in the US\nthere are ways we can curb this destruction\nsteering drug policy in the US away from prohibition toward recovery and abuse reduction would ease a lot of the impacts on biodiversity", "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 opioid epidemic causes rainforest deforestation—harm reduction is key.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "America's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\nThe jungles in Guatemala\nare some of the most biodiverse\ndrug trafficking has had a measurable effect\nDrug traffickers\ngrab\nup land and tear\ndown trees\nour addiction to painkillers is playing a role in the destruction of this precious ecosystem.\nWidespread addiction to opioid\ns\nexpanded the US market for heroin\nWith more demand for heroin in the US, drug cartels in Central and South America have even more incentive to continue tearing down the rainforests\nstatistics show\ndeforestation has continued to climb right along pace with our growing appetite for heroin.\nTraffickers\nneed a lot of land through which to move drugs\nto secure those routes, they\nbuy up the land and cut forests\nThese methods are causing increased deforestation, particularly in some of the most vulnerable ecological regions\nthe drug trade is responsible for at least 30 percent of all deforestation in Central America, but as much as 50 percent in some regions\nsystematic destruction of some of the most unique and valuable ecosystems on the planet\nThese are totally dynamics made in the US\nthere are ways we can curb this destruction\nsteering drug policy in the US away from prohibition toward recovery and abuse reduction would ease a lot of the impacts on biodiversity", "role": "user" }, { "content": "America's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\ntear\nsome of the most vulnerable ecological regions\nat least 30 percent\nas much as 50 percent\nwe can curb this destruction\nsteering drug policy\naway from prohibition toward recovery\nwould ease a lot of the impacts on biodiversity", "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 opioid epidemic causes rainforest deforestation—harm reduction is key.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "[Kaleigh, \"America's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest,\" Vice, 4-26-17, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3d9d8y/americas-opioid-epidemic-is-destroying-the-rainforest, accessed 5-30-20]\n\nAmerica's Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\nNarco-deforestation has been a long recognized phenomenon, but a growing heroin market is adding extra strain.\nThe jungles in Guatemala's northern reaches are some of the most biodiverse forests north of the Amazon. They're one of the last remaining homes for jaguars, tapirs, and scarlet macaws. And they're being systematically destroyed.\nThere are a number of factors that contribute to deforestation in Guatemala, but the impact of drug trafficking has had a measurable effect. Drug traffickers set up shop in the region, grabbing up land and tearing down trees to build landing strips for airplanes, or to set up farms, which they use to launder money. Narco-deforestation, as it's known, has long been a problem, but America's opioid epidemic is almost certainly making it worse.\nIt's a link that hasn't yet been made by researchers, but data from conservation, drug policy, and health literature add up to a compelling indication that our addiction to painkillers is playing a role in the destruction of this precious ecosystem.\nWidespread addiction to opioid painkillers like OxyContin has expanded the US market for heroin, which is almost identical chemically to prescription opioids. Heroin is also usually cheaper than pills, can be more readily available, and is more potent. With more demand for heroin in the US, drug cartels in Central and South America have even more incentive to continue tearing down the rainforests, and statistics show that deforestation has continued to climb right along pace with our growing appetite for heroin.\nI first learned about this connection during a reporting trip to central Guatemala. Fascinated by the networks at play influencing the opioid epidemic in the US, I was curious if it had had any impact in Central America. So one afternoon, while driving to visit some indigenous midwives in the hilly, bucolic Tecpán region, I turned to my interpreter to ask if she knew whether the drug trade had changed at all in recent years.\nShe nodded emphatically, telling me it's \"gotten worse,\" and that drug cartels in the north of the country were \"chopping down the rainforest.\"\n\"Is it just cocaine?\" I asked her.\n\"Cocaine,\" she acknowledged. \"But heroin, too.\"\nBetween 1990 and 2005, 17 percent of Guatemala's total forest cover was torn down—a loss of roughly half a million hectares of trees—according to the European Space Agency, which tracks deforestation using satellite imagery. It's continued at a similar pace since then, particularly in the ecologically vulnerable rainforest areas, where an increase in drug trafficking coincided with as much as 10 percent forest loss between 2006 and 2010, according to study published in Science.\nAnd it's only getting worse.\n\"It hasn't slowed down in the last four years,\" said Matthew Taylor, a professor of geography and the environment at the University of Denver, who has studied the impacts of drug trafficking on the environment. \"From speaking with my sources and from evidence from being in the field, it's increasing.\"\nThough agriculture and logging account for a large portion of this deforestation in Central and South America, the narco-deforestation has played a significant role, too. The actual cultivation of drugs like cocaine and heroin has an impact: The Organization of American States estimates that 2.5 million hectares of Amazonian forest in Peru have been destroyed to grow coca, while more than 1 million hectares of forest in Colombia have been culled to grow illicit drugs, including opium poppies for heroin.\nBut in Central America, the drug-related deforestation is caused instead by all of the activities surrounding the trafficking side of the supply chain, according to Kendra McSweeney, the study author and a professor of geography at Ohio State University.\n\"[Traffickers] need a lot of land through which to move drugs,\" McSweeney told me. \"In order to secure those routes, they like to buy up the land and cut forests for landing planes, landing boats, unloading, reloading, and driving out by car.\"\nDrug cartels also buy land and cut down forests to establish cattle ranches, which make handy businesses through which to launder money, McSweeney explained. It also gives them a diversification option: If the drug route gets cracked down, they still own the land, which they can sell off for major profits, since the original sale is usually made under duress (you can't really negotiate real estate prices with a drug cartel).\nThese methods are causing increased deforestation, particularly in some of the most vulnerable ecological regions, McSweeney said. She and other researchers estimate that the drug trade is responsible for at least 30 percent of all deforestation in Central America, but as much as 50 percent in some regions—including Guatemala's northern rainforests, located in the Petén department.\nThese drug trafficking organizations aren't dealing strictly in heroin. Cocaine is the biggest product by far, and they also dabble in marijuana farming and even cooking methamphetamine. But in recent years, heroin has become a growing export from Central America, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which reported that heroin seizures at the US-Mexico border more than doubled between 2010 and 2015.\nMuch of the heroin is coming directly from Mexico, but the DEA also reports that heroin coming into the US is produced in Guatemala and Colombia, and trafficked through networks across Central America. It's difficult to pin down exactly how much of these cartels' business is heroin, but it's clearly playing a role.\n\"What is and is not run by those groups is obviously not something that's public information,\" said Ben Hodgdon, the global director of forestry at the Rainforest Alliance, an NGO that works to preserve forest biodiversity. \"But these are criminal organizations that are tied up with trafficking any number of different narcotics, so I think it's reasonable to highlight some kind of link.\"\nAt the same time this drug trafficking-related deforestation was ramping up in Central America, the market for heroin in the United States was exploding. Between 2001 and 2013, the use of heroin in the United States increased five-fold, according to a recent study. That means that by 2013, approximately 3.8 million US adults had used heroin at some point in their lifetime.\nThe Centers for Disease Control says that heroin use in the US has increased across practically all demographics. It has more than doubled in young adults ages 18-25, and heroin overdose deaths are also on the rise. By 2013, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths had nearly quadrupled the rate from 2002, with more than 8,200 people overdosing in 2013. In 2015, opioid overdose deaths surpassed gun homicide deaths in America for the first time in history.\nNot all painkiller addicts go on to use heroin, but studies show a significant amount of new heroin users have previously abused prescription opioids. Between 75 and 80 percent of new heroin users have previously abused painkillers, and individuals addicted to prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin. We call it the opioid epidemic, instead of the OxyContin epidemic, because this scourge goes beyond prescription pills.\nAll of these factors add up to a disturbing conclusion: Our widespread abuse of prescription painkillers has led thousands of Americans who never would have used heroin to become addicted to the narcotic. This has driven up the demand for heroin, giving drug traffickers across Central and South America a bigger market to fill, and more means to continue their systematic destruction of some of the most unique and valuable ecosystems on the planet.\n\"These are totally dynamics made in the USA, no question,\" McSweeney told me.\nThe experts I spoke to all said there are ways we can curb this destruction. McSweeney believes that steering drug policy in the US away from prohibition toward recovery and abuse reduction would ease a lot of the impacts on biodiversity conservation. Hodgson advocated for working to help local communities reclaim land rights in ancestral lands—his research shows drug cartels tend to steer clear of forest that's already occupied.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Opioid Epidemic Is Destroying the Rainforest\ndrug cartels\nhave\nmore incentive to\ntear\ndown\nrainforests\nTraffickers\nneed a lot of land\nto move drugs\nto secure\nroutes\nthey\ncut forests\nsome of the most vulnerable\nregions\nresponsible for\n50 percent\nwe can curb this\nsteering drug policy in the US\ntoward recovery\nwould ease a lot of the impacts", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3—AI will proliferate and inevitably cause strain so balancing insurance before-hand is necessary.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nAnother potential threat identified by Yoshikawa, to the widespread adoption of a New Zealand-like scheme for robot insurance, arises from the certainty that the proliferation of AI could increase injury rates and make such an insurance scheme “unsustainable”. Against this fear I would argue that the inevitable increase in AI and robot related accidents demands insurance, and that it is deciding on the type of insurance best suited to such accidents which poses the big question, not whether or not insurance is the best solution.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Another potential threat identified by Yoshikawa\nto the widespread adoption of a New Zealand-like scheme for robot insurance\narises from\ncertainty that\nproliferation of AI could increase injury rates and make\nan insurance scheme “unsustainable”\nI would argue that the inevitable increase in AI\nrelated accidents demands insurance\nit is deciding on the type of insurance best suited to such accidents which poses the big question\nnot whether or not insurance is the best solution", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3—AI will proliferate and inevitably cause strain so balancing insurance before-hand is necessary.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nAnother potential threat identified by Yoshikawa, to the widespread adoption of a New Zealand-like scheme for robot insurance, arises from the certainty that the proliferation of AI could increase injury rates and make such an insurance scheme “unsustainable”. Against this fear I would argue that the inevitable increase in AI and robot related accidents demands insurance, and that it is deciding on the type of insurance best suited to such accidents which poses the big question, not whether or not insurance is the best solution.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Yoshikawa\nNew Zealand\nunsustainable\ninevitable increase in AI\ndemands insurance\ntype of insurance\nbig question\nbest solution", "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: 3—AI will proliferate and inevitably cause strain so balancing insurance before-hand is necessary.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Another potential threat identified by Yoshikawa\nto the widespread adoption of a New Zealand-like scheme for robot insurance\narises from\ncertainty that\nproliferation of AI could increase injury rates and make\nan insurance scheme “unsustainable”\nI would argue that the inevitable increase in AI\nrelated accidents demands insurance\nit is deciding on the type of insurance best suited to such accidents which poses the big question\nnot whether or not insurance is the best solution", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Another potential threat identified by Yoshikawa\nto the\nNew Zealand\nscheme\narises from\ncertainty that\nAI could increase injury rates and make\nan insurance scheme\nunsustainable\nthe inevitable increase in AI\naccidents demands insurance\nit is deciding on\ninsurance best suited\nwhich poses the big question\nnot whether or not insurance is the best solution", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Human rights to oceans solves MPA enforcement", "role": "system" }, { "content": "6 Are human rights relevant to Marine Protected Areas in the high seas?\nFor the integrated management of MPAs in ABNJ, socio-economic dimensions need to be considered along with environmental issues. So far, the discussion on high seas MPAs has been primary on the conservation and sustainable management of ecosystem functioning and services. Limited attention has been paid to human dimensions in creating the high seas MPAs, perhaps due to the large distance from inhabited areas and assumptions that there are only limited socioeconomic impacts.\nBut, are human rights irrelevant to high seas MPAs?\nFirst of all, the issue of access rights to the high seas MPAs can be considered. Under UNCLOS, flag-states have the freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of subma-rine cables and pipelines, construction of artificial islands or installations, fishing, and marine scientific research, subject to the conditions set by UNCLOS and other rules of international law.82 Even though freedom of navigation is granted, ships may need to detour MPA-designated areas depending on the management rules set for the location. This means that access right to a certain area might change through the creation of an MPA. It should be noted that high-sea MPAs that have been es-tablished under regional as well as international agreements only apply to the mem-ber states of these agreements. This means that non-parties to these agreements may not be obliged to follow the management rules even when the MPA is in principle closed for access.\nSecondly, withdrawal rights of states can be impacted by the presence of MPAs in ABNJ. For instance, under decisions by fisheries management organizations, state parties may decide to restrict their fishery activities in certain areas of the high seas.\nThese rules apply to the member states of respective regional bodies and the states may be required to give up withdrawal rights as well as the freedom of fishing. In case a non-member state to the relevant regional fisheries bodies does not comply with the guideline, it would be considered as a non-regulated fishery under the UN Fish Stock Agreement. This change in the withdrawal right will impact fishermen’s life especially in the short term as they may face economic losses due to the loss of fisheries ground and decreased catch.\nIn addition to fish, genetic resources can be subject to withdrawal in the high seas.\nWhile there is a heated discussion as to whether marine genetic resources fall under the regime of common heritage of humankind or not,83 withdrawal rights could be changed through the presence of MPAs. In this sense, individuals or groups of individuals, such as commercial operators conducting bioprospecting, may be finan-cially impacted by the change in the withdrawal rights.\nThirdly, management rights of certain coastal states can be examined. Under the MPAs established by regional instruments, only a certain number of countries with-in their respective regions are eligible for and engaged with-in the management of the MPAs in these high-seas. A relevant question is whether these states can be entrusted for the protection of the high seas if the high seas do not belong to any state. Certain costal states could be geographically located closer to the MPAs than other states, but it does not have to guarantee management rights. For the equitable management of the high seas ecosystems and their services, the allocation of management rights needs to be fully examined since the oceans are connected and the management of the high seas may well have an impact on territorial waters.\nThe issues of management rights lead to the question of the rights to participation.\nIt is relevant to ask who should participate in the creation, management and mon-itoring of high seas MPAs. The oceans, including the high seas, have an important function for human wellbeing including the generation of oxygen, food supply and absorption of heat as a climate regulator. If these services are to be protected, the protection of the high seas could be of concern to any individuals. As such, in prin-ciple, any individuals have rights to participate in a process to protect a safe and healthy environment. This means that appropriate measures and relevant informa-tion for participainforma-tion need to be available instead of relying on closed-door decisions on the creation, management and monitoring of MPAs in ABNJ.\nLast but not least, other emerging rights such as inter-generational rights could be considered to be relevant to high seas MPAs. Conservation efforts do not produce results in one day, and a decision today will have an implication on future declarations.. Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration84 states that ‘the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.’ In line with the Principle, the rights of future generations to a healthy ocean and its natural resources need to be considered when discussing the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas.\n7 Conclusion\nUntil now the creation of high-seas MPAs has been taking a technocratic approach focusing on conservation benefits, and the consideration for human dimensions has not been well made. However, examples of MPAs in the territorial waters, as well as experiences from terrestrial protected areas, have shown the importance of socioec-onomic dimensions. Some recent studies have started to analyze the impact of high seas MPAs on indigenous rights. For instance, in eastern and central Polynesia, non-fish natural resources such as whales, dolphins, tuna, and turtle are often considered to be totemic animals of extended families and clans. Property rights of indigenous people could, therefore, include rights to these traditional cultural resources, beyond fishing rights.85 Further research is needed to understand how to best consider hu-man rights in high seas MPAs.\nConsidering that UNCLOS and human rights law are interlinked, there is a possi-bility to better include human rights perspectives in developing high seas MPAs in the framework of a new ILBI to be developed under UNCLOS. Human rights are closely relevant to high seas MPAs including access rights, withdrawal rights, right to information, right to participation and inter-generational rights. These rights could be reallocated through the establishment of MPAs in the high seas. It could thus be concluded that human rights are relevant to high seas MPAs even though there may be no humans living in the high seas.\nAs the Intergovernmental Conference on an ILBI under UNCLOS on the conserva-tion and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond naconserva-tional juris-diction continues, I would recommend considering human dimensions, including human rights, together with other legal and scientific dimensions in the discussion on area-based management tools including MPAs. Rights-based approaches, which have been used for conservation, could provide a useful framework in examining socio-economic impacts of any future governance process for MPAs in ABNJ. It is to be hoped that human dimensions will be properly incorporated in the consider-ation of a mechanism for site-selection, management, monitoring and enforcement of MPAs in the high seas.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "human rights relevant to Marine Protected Areas in the high seas\nMPAs\nsocio-economic dimensions need to be considered along with environmental issues. So far, the discussion on high seas MPAs has been primary on the conservation\nUnder UNCLOS, flag-states have the freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of subma-rine cables and pipelines, construction of artificial islands or installations,\nsubject to the conditions set by UNCLOS and other rules of international law.\nIn addition to fish\ngenetic resources can be subject to withdrawal in the high seas.\nthis sense, individuals or groups of individuals, such as commercial operators conducting bioprospecting\nmay be finan-cially impacted by the change in the withdrawal rights.\nUnder the MPAs established by regional instruments, only a certain number of countries with-in their respective regions are eligible for and engaged with-in the management of the MPAs in these high-seas\nrights. For the equitable management of the high seas ecosystems and their services\nallocation of management rights needs to be fully examined since the oceans are connected and the management of the high seas may well have an impact on territorial waters.\nthe question of the rights to participation.\nregulator. If these services are to be protected, the protection of the high seas could be of concern to any individuals\nprin-ciple, any individuals have rights to participate in a process to protect a safe and healthy environment. This means that appropriate measures and relevant informa\ntion need to be available instead of relying on closed-door decisions on the creation, management and monitoring of MPAs in ABNJ.\nthe right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations\nrights of future generations to a healthy ocean and its natural resources need to be considered when discussing the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas.\nexamples of MPAs in the territorial waters, as well as experiences from terrestrial protected areas, have shown the importance of socioec-onomic dimensions. S\nthere is a possi-bility to better include human rights perspectives in developing high seas MPAs in the framework of a new ILBI to be developed under UNCLOS. Human rights are closely relevant to high seas MPAs including access rights, withdrawal rights, right to information, right to participation and inter-generational rights\nThese rights could be reallocated through the establishment of MPAs in the high seas.\nI would recommend considering human dimensions, including human rights, together with other legal and scientific dimensions in the discussion on area-based management tools\n-based approaches, which have been used for conservation, could provide a useful framework in examining socio-economic impacts of any future governance process\nin\nenforcement of MPAs in the high seas.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Human rights to oceans solves MPA enforcement", "role": "system" }, { "content": "human rights relevant to Marine Protected Areas in the high seas\nMPAs\nsocio-economic dimensions need to be considered along with environmental issues. So far, the discussion on high seas MPAs has been primary on the conservation\nUnder UNCLOS, flag-states have the freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of subma-rine cables and pipelines, construction of artificial islands or installations,\nsubject to the conditions set by UNCLOS and other rules of international law.\nIn addition to fish\ngenetic resources can be subject to withdrawal in the high seas.\nthis sense, individuals or groups of individuals, such as commercial operators conducting bioprospecting\nmay be finan-cially impacted by the change in the withdrawal rights.\nUnder the MPAs established by regional instruments, only a certain number of countries with-in their respective regions are eligible for and engaged with-in the management of the MPAs in these high-seas\nrights. For the equitable management of the high seas ecosystems and their services\nallocation of management rights needs to be fully examined since the oceans are connected and the management of the high seas may well have an impact on territorial waters.\nthe question of the rights to participation.\nregulator. If these services are to be protected, the protection of the high seas could be of concern to any individuals\nprin-ciple, any individuals have rights to participate in a process to protect a safe and healthy environment. This means that appropriate measures and relevant informa\ntion need to be available instead of relying on closed-door decisions on the creation, management and monitoring of MPAs in ABNJ.\nthe right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations\nrights of future generations to a healthy ocean and its natural resources need to be considered when discussing the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas.\nexamples of MPAs in the territorial waters, as well as experiences from terrestrial protected areas, have shown the importance of socioec-onomic dimensions. S\nthere is a possi-bility to better include human rights perspectives in developing high seas MPAs in the framework of a new ILBI to be developed under UNCLOS. Human rights are closely relevant to high seas MPAs including access rights, withdrawal rights, right to information, right to participation and inter-generational rights\nThese rights could be reallocated through the establishment of MPAs in the high seas.\nI would recommend considering human dimensions, including human rights, together with other legal and scientific dimensions in the discussion on area-based management tools\n-based approaches, which have been used for conservation, could provide a useful framework in examining socio-economic impacts of any future governance process\nin\nenforcement of MPAs in the high seas.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "human rights relevant to\nMPAs\nsocio-economic dimensions\nsubject to\ninternational law.\nIn addition to fish\nindividuals\nsuch as commercial operators\nmay be finan-cially impacted by the change in the withdrawal rights.\nFor the equitable management of the\nallocation of management rights needs to be fully examined since\nterritorial\nrights to participation.\nprotection of the high seas could be of concern to any individuals\nany individuals have rights to participate in\nprocess to protect\nhealthy environment\nThis means\nappropriate measures\nclosed-door decisions\nthe right to development must be fulfilled so\nequitably meet developmental\nrights of future generations to a healthy ocean and its natural resources\nconsidered when discussing\nconservation\ninclude\nMPAs\ndeveloped under UNCLOS\nincluding access rights, withdrawal rights,\nparticipation and inter-generational rights\nMPAs in the high seas\nconsidering human dimensions\nin\nenforcement of MPAs", "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: Human rights to oceans solves MPA enforcement\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "human rights relevant to Marine Protected Areas in the high seas\nMPAs\nsocio-economic dimensions need to be considered along with environmental issues. So far, the discussion on high seas MPAs has been primary on the conservation\nUnder UNCLOS, flag-states have the freedom of navigation, overflight, laying of subma-rine cables and pipelines, construction of artificial islands or installations,\nsubject to the conditions set by UNCLOS and other rules of international law.\nIn addition to fish\ngenetic resources can be subject to withdrawal in the high seas.\nthis sense, individuals or groups of individuals, such as commercial operators conducting bioprospecting\nmay be finan-cially impacted by the change in the withdrawal rights.\nUnder the MPAs established by regional instruments, only a certain number of countries with-in their respective regions are eligible for and engaged with-in the management of the MPAs in these high-seas\nrights. For the equitable management of the high seas ecosystems and their services\nallocation of management rights needs to be fully examined since the oceans are connected and the management of the high seas may well have an impact on territorial waters.\nthe question of the rights to participation.\nregulator. If these services are to be protected, the protection of the high seas could be of concern to any individuals\nprin-ciple, any individuals have rights to participate in a process to protect a safe and healthy environment. This means that appropriate measures and relevant informa\ntion need to be available instead of relying on closed-door decisions on the creation, management and monitoring of MPAs in ABNJ.\nthe right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations\nrights of future generations to a healthy ocean and its natural resources need to be considered when discussing the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas.\nexamples of MPAs in the territorial waters, as well as experiences from terrestrial protected areas, have shown the importance of socioec-onomic dimensions. S\nthere is a possi-bility to better include human rights perspectives in developing high seas MPAs in the framework of a new ILBI to be developed under UNCLOS. Human rights are closely relevant to high seas MPAs including access rights, withdrawal rights, right to information, right to participation and inter-generational rights\nThese rights could be reallocated through the establishment of MPAs in the high seas.\nI would recommend considering human dimensions, including human rights, together with other legal and scientific dimensions in the discussion on area-based management tools\n-based approaches, which have been used for conservation, could provide a useful framework in examining socio-economic impacts of any future governance process\nin\nenforcement of MPAs in the high seas.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "human rights relevant to\nMPAs\nsocio-economic dimensions need to be considered\nflag-states have the freedom of navigation\nsubject to\ninternational law.\nIn addition to fish\ngenetic resources can be subject to withdrawal\nFor\nequitable management\nallocation of management rights needs to be\nexamined since\noceans are connected\nrights to participation.\nprotection\ncould be of concern to any individuals\nany individuals\nparticipate in\nprocess to protect\nenvironment\nThis means\nmeasures\nneed to be available instead of\nclosed-door decisions\nthe right to development must\nequitably meet developmental\nenvironmental needs\nrights\nto\nhealthy ocean\nneed to be considered when discussing\nconservation\ninclude human rights perspectives in\nMPAs\ndeveloped under UNCLOS\nincluding access rights, withdrawal rights,\nparticipation and inter-generational rights\nrights could be reallocated through\nMPAs in the high seas\nconsidering human dimensions\ncould provide a useful framework\nin\nenforcement of MPAs", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Russian nuclear use unlikely – Multiple intelligence assessments prove", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Ahead of a widely expected counteroffensive by Ukraine in its war with Russia, the U.S. intelligence community continues to assert that the likelihood of Russian President Vladimir Putin using nuclear weapons in the war remains low. “It is very unlikely” that Russia would employ nuclear weapons, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told Congress during a May 4 hearing. Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also testified at the hearing, agreed with Haines, but added that, “in the nature of conflict, there is always that possibility” of nuclear weapons use. The assessment followed Russia’s suspension in February of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last Russian-U.S. nuclear arms control agreement still standing. (See ACT, March 2023.) Moscow has conditioned a resumption of the treaty and its associated activities, such as on-site inspections and detailed data exchanges, on Washington withdrawing support from Kyiv. “Russia’s decision to suspend the [New] START may be reversible,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in an April 20 statement. “However, for this, the United States must show political will and abandon its aggressive policy of undermining the security of our country, taking practical steps towards a real de-escalation.” Despite the Russian suspension, the United States has continued to provide broad unclassified data on its strategic nuclear arsenal. In this year’s first biannual data exchange, Washington reported that it deploys 1,419 warheads on 662 delivery vehicles, roughly the same data as in September. (See ACT, November 2022.) “The United States continues to view transparency among nuclear weapon states as extremely valuable for reducing the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and costly arms competitions,” the State Department said in a statement accompanying the publication of the data on May 12. Russia and the United States have emphasized that they will continue to adhere to an ongoing 1988 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires the two nations to exchange notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Russia also expressed its intention to continue adhering to a 1989 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires advance notification of major strategic exercises.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Ahead of a widely expected counteroffensive by Ukraine in its war with Russia, the U.S. intelligence community continues to assert that the likelihood of\nVladimir Putin using nuclear weapons in the war remains low. “It is very unlikely” that Russia would employ nuclear weapons, Director of National Intelligence\nHaines told Congress\n Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also testified at the hearing, agreed with Haines,\n The assessment followed Russia’s suspension\nof\n(New START),\n Despite the Russian suspension, the United States has continued to provide broad unclassified data on its strategic nuclear arsenal\n “The United States continues to view transparency among nuclear weapon states as extremely valuable for reducing the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and costly arms competitions,” the State Department said\n Russia and the United States have emphasized that they will continue to adhere to an ongoing 1988 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires the two nations to exchange notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Russia also expressed its intention to continue adhering to a 1989 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires advance notification of major strategic exercises.", "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: Russian nuclear use unlikely – Multiple intelligence assessments prove\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Ahead of a widely expected counteroffensive by Ukraine in its war with Russia, the U.S. intelligence community continues to assert that the likelihood of Russian President Vladimir Putin using nuclear weapons in the war remains low. “It is very unlikely” that Russia would employ nuclear weapons, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told Congress during a May 4 hearing. Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also testified at the hearing, agreed with Haines, but added that, “in the nature of conflict, there is always that possibility” of nuclear weapons use. The assessment followed Russia’s suspension in February of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last Russian-U.S. nuclear arms control agreement still standing. (See ACT, March 2023.) Moscow has conditioned a resumption of the treaty and its associated activities, such as on-site inspections and detailed data exchanges, on Washington withdrawing support from Kyiv. “Russia’s decision to suspend the [New] START may be reversible,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in an April 20 statement. “However, for this, the United States must show political will and abandon its aggressive policy of undermining the security of our country, taking practical steps towards a real de-escalation.” Despite the Russian suspension, the United States has continued to provide broad unclassified data on its strategic nuclear arsenal. In this year’s first biannual data exchange, Washington reported that it deploys 1,419 warheads on 662 delivery vehicles, roughly the same data as in September. (See ACT, November 2022.) “The United States continues to view transparency among nuclear weapon states as extremely valuable for reducing the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and costly arms competitions,” the State Department said in a statement accompanying the publication of the data on May 12. Russia and the United States have emphasized that they will continue to adhere to an ongoing 1988 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires the two nations to exchange notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Russia also expressed its intention to continue adhering to a 1989 Soviet-U.S. agreement that requires advance notification of major strategic exercises.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the U.S. intelligence community continues to assert that the likelihood of\nPutin using nuclear weapons in the war remains low. “It is very unlikely”\nDirector of National Intelligence\nHaines told Congress\nBerrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,\nalso testified\nagreed with Haines\nDespite the Russian suspension, the U\nS\nhas continued to provide\ndata\n“The\ntransparency among nuclear weapon states as extremely valuable for reducing the likelihood of misperception, miscalculation, and costly arms competitions,” the State Department said\nRussia and the United States have emphasized that they will continue to adhere to an ongoing 1988\nagreement that requires the two nations to exchange notifications\nRussia also expressed its intention to continue adhering to a 1989\nagreement that requires advance notification of major strategic exercises", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Open AI models democratize access and lower global inequality. That prevents disenfranchised agents with access to advanced tech from wreaking havoc.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The Risks of Global Wealth Inequality\nElon Musk, like Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky and others in the same community, seems especially concerned about the potential risks posed by massively superhuman AGIs once they appear. These risks are real and shouldn’t be ignored; I have given some views on this in a series of recent articles (see Infusing AIs with Humanlike Value Systems, and Superintelligence: Fears, Promises and Potentials). On the other hand, we should be at least equally worried about the risks posed by global wealth inequality and the anger and discontent it fosters.\nAs I’ve pointed out in a recent essay (How To Save The World), the developing world is home to an increasing number of tech geeks with solid science and engineering chops but a very justified sense of disenfranchisement from the modern world economy. This fact represents a large opportunity lost for humanity (everyone with a background in AI or mechatronics or biotech who ends up working in a low-tech job because of the country they were born in, is a loss for humanity’s progress toward a positive Singularity). And it also has all sorts of destructive potentials.\nAs technology advances, it becomes easier and easier for smaller and smaller groups of people to wreak more and more havoc. The reason more advanced-tech havoc is not sown in the world right now is that, by and large, the people with the most tech knowledge and chops don’t WANT to wreak havoc. But as there appear more and more marginalized science and tech geeks in the developing world — who can’t get visas to Silicon Valley, London or Beijing, and who get paid $4/hour on Upwork for doing the exact same work that someone in Silicon Valley gets paid $80/hour for — there may well appear more and more people with both the chops and the psychological/cultural/situational motivation to wreak havoc.\nGovernment regulation that allows only well-connected corporations to create AI would not help mitigate this sort of risk. Rather, it would just cause wealth and opportunity to become more and more centralized and localized.\nSome will argue that wealth inequality is just as it should be, because individuals of unequal ability and contribution deserve unequal compensation from society — just as individuals of varying ability may be able to reap varying rewards from the natural world. But still — it’s very hard to argue the morality or fairness of a new university graduate in, say, mechatronics earning 20x more if they happen to have been born in Los Angeles instead of Lalibela….\nWhat we need, in order to avoid the immorality as well as the risk posed by increasing wealth inequality, is for AI to be developed in a way that\nfocuses on tasks of deeper and broader importance to humanity, rather than tasks oriented to increase the differential wealth or status or military power of some particular social group\nincludes a wide variety of humans around the world in its process of development.\nAt the current time, government regulation and close government control does not seem the best way to achieve these goals. Because the major national governments in the world, and most of the minor ones, appear to be largely under the thrall of relatively small numbers of big corporations and high net worth individuals.\nOpen source software and hardware development seems to be one route toward achieving the above goals. Democratizing educational media such as open online courseware is another part of the story. I have discussed the importance of these and other decentralizing technologies in the essay I mentioned above, “How To Save The World.”\nBut the modern corporatocracy makes even intrinsically democratizing phenomena like opensource complicated. Big tech companies now routinely release open source software, such as Google’s Tensorflow deep learning toolkit. Tensorflow is in many ways slicker and easier to use than comparable deep learning tools created by university teams — which is not surprising, as Google has used highly paid professionals to work on documentation, tutorials, user interfaces and other very useful bells and whistles that low-budget open source tools often lack. On the other hand, while Tensorflow is opensource code, it is developed in a rather “closed” manner. Periodically Google emits some fully-formed code embodying some new functionalities into the opensource Tensorflow codebase. The development process does not occur out in the open like with classic opensource projects. Insider Google developers and their manager get to make all the strategic decisions and core design choices — not random interested developers outside Google’s employ.\nA cynic might argue that initiatives like Google’s Tensorflow, and Elon Musk’s OpenAI, are efforts to capture the opensource AI community into the orbit of certain big companies. These corporate-based opensource initiatives dangle shiny interfaces and slick APIs in front of opensource AI developers, thus cajoling them to work on problems and tools of interest to the corporations involved. These companies then have a large population of potential new hires to choose from, already trained in applying software created by said companies to problems of practical interest to said companies.\nAnother hallmark of current big-company AI efforts is that ambitious management talk that touches on AGI, is often coupled with technical work that focuses almost entirely on very narrow application-specific problems. There are a few islands of genuine AGI-oriented work within big corporations — but not nearly as much as a non-expert might think given the rhetoric bouncing around. IBM Watson is an expert system and a data mining framework, but from the marketing prose one might think it was a serious attempt to make a thinking machine. Google and Facebook and Baidu do have some fairly small teams doing directly AGI-ish work, but a vast majority of their AI staff are working on highly specific problems aimed at increasing corporate revenue.\nThe near disappearance of viable business models for journalism has seriously affected the ability of the general public to understand what kinds of progress big company AI divisions are and are not making. Since more and more people want to read news online now for reasons of convenience, and since most online ad revenue from news-reading individuals goes to big tech companies and not to news media companies, there is not much money around to pay journalists to carefully evaluate AI-related PR claims made by big companies. For instance, last year I read a bunch of incredibly glowing articles about Google’s revolutionary advances in machine translation, made via transfer learning between different languages. For a brief period I was almost snowed by the press-releases-cum-news-articles, and started to wonder if machine translation had been substantially solved. But a few examples sufficed to clarify that Google Translate’s English-Chinese translation remained pretty terrible. It even mangled “Long Live Chairman Mao”! But the average reader of the glowing articles probably would never have checked.\nOf course media hype breeds more media hype. I myself have admittedly been complicit in various acts of media hype, in seeking wider attention for my own work on AI and robotics. But ultimately, while hyping technology can help out startups (especially if there is some reality underlying the hype, which has always been the case with my own tech publicity efforts), the big companies are almost always going to win due to their amply funded PR and marketing departments.\nSome small companies hit the jackpot and become big companies. This is great and keeps the universe of big companies from becoming utterly stale. But even so, once a fresh and exciting startup becomes a megacorporation, it almost always become bureaucratized and starts acting a lot like the behemoths it displaced. Pete Townshend’s classic line “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” applies in the tech-corporation world just like in politics.\nLet’s Push For Free, Open and Beneficial Applications of AI and AGI\nThe world is complex and rapidly changing, and it’s not at all easy to predict which aspects of today’s society are going to seem positive, negative, ridiculous or beautiful in hindsight. On balance, though, it appears to me that the odds of a positive outcome for humanity — and for the creation of transhuman AGI minds that are positive according to human values — will be higher if we can nudge things so that advanced AI development is not heavily dominated by large corporations.\nBig companies are part of our world and have contributed a lot as well as caused a lot of problems, and it’s unavoidable in context that they are going to play a big role in AI development. Big companies can do certain things really, really well; and some of these things are undeniably useful for AI.\nHowever, big companies are not great at global inclusiveness; nor at increasing fairness and combating wealth inequality; nor at fostering creativity and imagination; nor at taking care of the Earth or the human psyche. To achieve these goals, we need our advanced AI development to be coupled with other forms of social organization.\nToday’s “free and open source” software movement points in a promising direction — though obviously just open-sourcing of AI and AGI is not anywhere near a solution to the major challenges we face.\nApplications of AI to domains of dramatic positive value such as medicine, education, elder-care and scientific research are also clearly pointing in the right direction.\nI happen to be personally working on projects of this nature: an AI-based biomedical researcher’s assistant, an AI-powered teacher avatar for African children, and an AI-powered home health advisor for chronically ill elderly Chinese. And I can’t help mentioning here the “Loving AI” project I’m involved with, aimed at creating robots and avatars that will display and ultimately feel unconditional love toward humans.\nBut my own particular projects are not the main point here — the point is that if we want to increase the odds of a radically positive future, we want to have a large percentage of the world’s AI efforts to be put on this sort of project, not on advertising or killing or spying.\nAlso very positive are initiatives aimed at putting advanced AI on low-cost hardware that can be used throughout the developing as well as developed world (such as Raspberry Pi and other embedded boards).\nIn general, in terms of near term courses of action, it seems to me that if we want to create broadly beneficial outcomes for human beings and other sentiences, we should be developing AGI and other advanced AIs in a way that\nis open-source, and also open-process … i.e. open-source the way Apache projects are rather than the way Tensorflow is\nmakes efforts to draw individuals from every part of the world and every socioeconomic class and culture into the process of developing and deploying AI\nfocuses AI development energy on applications of broadly positive value (rather than on applications aimed at differentially increasing the wealth or status of relatively small groups).\nThis attitude does not imply government regulation has no place. But it does oppose types of government regulation that give differential rights for AI development to large corporations with big lobbyist budgets and tight government connections.\nWe don’t need AI of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations. We need AI of the people, by the people and for the people. This is the best way to increase the odds that, as people are joined on the planet by AGIs with equal and greater intelligence, these AGIs will be for the people as well as for the AGIs.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The Risks of Global Wealth Inequality\nwe should be\nworried about\nrisks posed by global\ninequality and\nanger and discontent it fosters.\nthe developing world is home to an increasing number of tech geeks with\ndisenfranchisement from the modern world economy\nThis\nrepresents a large opportunity lost for humanity\nit also has all sorts of destructive potentials.\nAs technology advances, it becomes easier\nfor smaller and smaller groups of people to wreak more and more havoc\nas there appear more\nmarginalized\ngeeks in the developing world\nthere may well appear more and more people with\nchops and\npsychological\nsituational motivation to wreak havoc.\nWhat we need\nis for AI to be developed in a way that\nfocuses on tasks of\nimportance to humanity\nrather than\nto increase\ndifferential wealth or status or military power of some particular social group\nOpen source software and hardware\nseems\none route toward achieving the above goals\nit appears to me that the odds of a positive outcome for humanity\ntranshuman AGI\npositive according to human values\nwill be higher if we can nudge things so\nadvanced AI development is not heavily dominated by large corporations.\nbig companies are not great at\ninclusiveness\nfree and open source\nsoftware\npoints in a promising direction\nwe want to have a large percentage of the world’s AI efforts to be put on this sort of project, not on advertising or killing or spying\nwe should be developing AGI and other advanced AIs in a way that\nis open-source, and also open-process\nthe way Apache projects are", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Open AI models democratize access and lower global inequality. That prevents disenfranchised agents with access to advanced tech from wreaking havoc.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The Risks of Global Wealth Inequality\nwe should be\nworried about\nrisks posed by global\ninequality and\nanger and discontent it fosters.\nthe developing world is home to an increasing number of tech geeks with\ndisenfranchisement from the modern world economy\nThis\nrepresents a large opportunity lost for humanity\nit also has all sorts of destructive potentials.\nAs technology advances, it becomes easier\nfor smaller and smaller groups of people to wreak more and more havoc\nas there appear more\nmarginalized\ngeeks in the developing world\nthere may well appear more and more people with\nchops and\npsychological\nsituational motivation to wreak havoc.\nWhat we need\nis for AI to be developed in a way that\nfocuses on tasks of\nimportance to humanity\nrather than\nto increase\ndifferential wealth or status or military power of some particular social group\nOpen source software and hardware\nseems\none route toward achieving the above goals\nit appears to me that the odds of a positive outcome for humanity\ntranshuman AGI\npositive according to human values\nwill be higher if we can nudge things so\nadvanced AI development is not heavily dominated by large corporations.\nbig companies are not great at\ninclusiveness\nfree and open source\nsoftware\npoints in a promising direction\nwe want to have a large percentage of the world’s AI efforts to be put on this sort of project, not on advertising or killing or spying\nwe should be developing AGI and other advanced AIs in a way that\nis open-source, and also open-process\nthe way Apache projects are", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The Risks of Global Wealth Inequality\ndiscontent\nfosters\ndisenfranchisement\nopportunity lost for humanity\nall sorts of destructive potentials.\neasier\nmore and more havoc\nmarginalized\ndeveloping world\nchops and\nmotivation to wreak havoc.\nhumanity\ndifferential wealth\nmilitary power\nsoftware and hardware\npositive outcome for humanity\nnudge things\nlarge corporations\ninclusiveness\npromising direction\nnot on advertising or killing or spying\nopen-process\nApache projects are", "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: Open AI models democratize access and lower global inequality. That prevents disenfranchised agents with access to advanced tech from wreaking havoc.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The Risks of Global Wealth Inequality\nwe should be\nworried about\nrisks posed by global\ninequality and\nanger and discontent it fosters.\nthe developing world is home to an increasing number of tech geeks with\ndisenfranchisement from the modern world economy\nThis\nrepresents a large opportunity lost for humanity\nit also has all sorts of destructive potentials.\nAs technology advances, it becomes easier\nfor smaller and smaller groups of people to wreak more and more havoc\nas there appear more\nmarginalized\ngeeks in the developing world\nthere may well appear more and more people with\nchops and\npsychological\nsituational motivation to wreak havoc.\nWhat we need\nis for AI to be developed in a way that\nfocuses on tasks of\nimportance to humanity\nrather than\nto increase\ndifferential wealth or status or military power of some particular social group\nOpen source software and hardware\nseems\none route toward achieving the above goals\nit appears to me that the odds of a positive outcome for humanity\ntranshuman AGI\npositive according to human values\nwill be higher if we can nudge things so\nadvanced AI development is not heavily dominated by large corporations.\nbig companies are not great at\ninclusiveness\nfree and open source\nsoftware\npoints in a promising direction\nwe want to have a large percentage of the world’s AI efforts to be put on this sort of project, not on advertising or killing or spying\nwe should be developing AGI and other advanced AIs in a way that\nis open-source, and also open-process\nthe way Apache projects are", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Risks of\nInequality\nand\ndiscontent it fosters.\ndeveloping world is home to\ntech geeks with\ndisenfranchisement from\nworld economy\nThis\nhas\ndestructive potentials.\nAs tech\nadvances, it becomes easier\nfor smaller\ngroups\nto wreak\nhavoc\nmarginalized\ngeeks in the developing world\nmay\nappear more and more\nwith\nchops and\nmotivation to wreak havoc\nOpen source software\nseems\none route\nfree\nopen source\nsoftware\npoints in a promising direction\nwe should\ndevelop\nadvanced AIs in a way that\nis open-source, and\nopen-process", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Policy elites are uniquely opposed to the plan—it’s seen as unilateral retrenchment that necessitates nuclear acquisition.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nWhy There Is Likely to Be Resistance in Australia to NFU Proposals\nResistance to NFU policies in light of Biden’s election victory is already evident among some analysts and academics, who have been influential in Australia’s Defense White Paper processes.Footnote17 Opinions offered are that NFU “would end US strategic ambiguity,” that the prospect of NFU is “certain to have some decision-makers – notably in Tokyo and Seoul – re-examining their options for acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent,” and that “a no-first-use US nuclear posture would be bad for Australia and the region.”\nSuch critics inevitability point to a deteriorating security environment, especially the rise in tensions with China, since the last Australian Defense White Paper was released. The 2020 Defense Review Update argues that military modernization has accelerated “faster than envisaged” in the Indo-Pacific, and that “strategic competition, primarily between the United States and China, will be the principal driver of strategic dynamics in our region.”Footnote18 The chance of high-intensity military conflict between the US and China is deemed to have increased.\nTo address these fears, the Review noted substantial increases in the defense budget, including for the development and procurement of advanced missile capabilities, and a determination to “continue to deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States.” The overall tone of the Review is the need to develop a strong, self-reliant deterrent capability, to discourage military and nonmilitary coercion by China. However, while it is undeniable that Chinese missile capabilities are increasing rapidly, there are numerous ways Australia can respond without contributing to the Asia-Pacific’s accelerating arms race.Footnote19 One potential area for cooperation is promotion of regional arms control arrangements and even Australia-China dialogs on risk-reduction measures.\nNonetheless, it is these perennial fears which seem to drive a small group of Australian policy elites to resist any move by Washington toward NFU. As happened in 2016, US allies could become the real obstacle. Already, a strident tone is being set: Australia’s security, it is argued, depends on “an end to unilateral decisions [such as NFU] in Washington that affect allies” security’. This writer has suggested that Australia should start to build discreetly “a coalition among like-minded US allies and opponents of No-First-Use in Washington, to ensure that this next push doesn’t gain further traction and threaten another crisis of confidence in US alliances.”Footnote20\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There Is Likely to Be Resistance in Australia to NFU\nResistance to NFU policies in light of Biden’s\nvictory is\nevident among\nanalysts and academics, who have been influential in Australia’s Defense White Paper processes.\nOpinions offered are that NFU “would end US strategic ambiguity,” that\nNFU is “certain to have\ndecision-makers\nre-examining\noptions for acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent,” and\n“a no-first-use\nposture would be bad for Australia and the region.”\ncritics\npoint to a deteriorating security environment, especially the rise in tensions with China, since the last\nDefense White Paper\nThe 2020\nUpdate argues\nmodernization\naccelerated\nand\n“strategic competition\nbetween the United States and China, will be the\ndriver of strategic dynamics\nThe chance of high-intensity\nconflict\nis deemed to have increased.\nTo address\nfears, the Review noted substantial increases in the defense budget, including\ndevelopment and procurement of advanced missile capabilities, and a determination to “continue to deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States.”\nit is these perennial fears which\ndrive\nAustralian policy elites to resist any move by Washington toward NFU. As happened in 2016,\nallies could become the real obstacle.\na strident tone is being set: Australia’s security\ndepends on “an end to unilateral decisions [such as NFU] in Washington that affect allies” security’. This writer\nsuggested\nAustralia should start to build\n“a coalition among like-minded US allies and opponents of No-First-Use\nto ensure\nthis next push doesn’t gain further traction and threaten another crisis of confidence in\nalliances.”", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Policy elites are uniquely opposed to the plan—it’s seen as unilateral retrenchment that necessitates nuclear acquisition.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "There Is Likely to Be Resistance in Australia to NFU\nResistance to NFU policies in light of Biden’s\nvictory is\nevident among\nanalysts and academics, who have been influential in Australia’s Defense White Paper processes.\nOpinions offered are that NFU “would end US strategic ambiguity,” that\nNFU is “certain to have\ndecision-makers\nre-examining\noptions for acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent,” and\n“a no-first-use\nposture would be bad for Australia and the region.”\ncritics\npoint to a deteriorating security environment, especially the rise in tensions with China, since the last\nDefense White Paper\nThe 2020\nUpdate argues\nmodernization\naccelerated\nand\n“strategic competition\nbetween the United States and China, will be the\ndriver of strategic dynamics\nThe chance of high-intensity\nconflict\nis deemed to have increased.\nTo address\nfears, the Review noted substantial increases in the defense budget, including\ndevelopment and procurement of advanced missile capabilities, and a determination to “continue to deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States.”\nit is these perennial fears which\ndrive\nAustralian policy elites to resist any move by Washington toward NFU. As happened in 2016,\nallies could become the real obstacle.\na strident tone is being set: Australia’s security\ndepends on “an end to unilateral decisions [such as NFU] in Washington that affect allies” security’. This writer\nsuggested\nAustralia should start to build\n“a coalition among like-minded US allies and opponents of No-First-Use\nto ensure\nthis next push doesn’t gain further traction and threaten another crisis of confidence in\nalliances.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "NFU\nanalysts\nacademics\ninfluential in Australia\nend US strategic ambiguity\nre-examining\nindependent nuclear deterrent\ndeteriorating security environment\nChina\nadvanced\ncapabilities\nU\nS\npolicy elites\nany move\nreal obstacle\nAustralia’s security\ndepends on “an end to unilateral decisions\nthat affect allies” security’\nanother crisis of confidence", "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: Policy elites are uniquely opposed to the plan—it’s seen as unilateral retrenchment that necessitates nuclear acquisition.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "There Is Likely to Be Resistance in Australia to NFU\nResistance to NFU policies in light of Biden’s\nvictory is\nevident among\nanalysts and academics, who have been influential in Australia’s Defense White Paper processes.\nOpinions offered are that NFU “would end US strategic ambiguity,” that\nNFU is “certain to have\ndecision-makers\nre-examining\noptions for acquiring an independent nuclear deterrent,” and\n“a no-first-use\nposture would be bad for Australia and the region.”\ncritics\npoint to a deteriorating security environment, especially the rise in tensions with China, since the last\nDefense White Paper\nThe 2020\nUpdate argues\nmodernization\naccelerated\nand\n“strategic competition\nbetween the United States and China, will be the\ndriver of strategic dynamics\nThe chance of high-intensity\nconflict\nis deemed to have increased.\nTo address\nfears, the Review noted substantial increases in the defense budget, including\ndevelopment and procurement of advanced missile capabilities, and a determination to “continue to deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States.”\nit is these perennial fears which\ndrive\nAustralian policy elites to resist any move by Washington toward NFU. As happened in 2016,\nallies could become the real obstacle.\na strident tone is being set: Australia’s security\ndepends on “an end to unilateral decisions [such as NFU] in Washington that affect allies” security’. This writer\nsuggested\nAustralia should start to build\n“a coalition among like-minded US allies and opponents of No-First-Use\nto ensure\nthis next push doesn’t gain further traction and threaten another crisis of confidence in\nalliances.”", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Resistance to NFU\nis\nevident among\nanalysts and academics\ninfluential in Australia\nOpinions\nthat NFU “would end\nstrategic ambiguity,”\ncertain to have\ndecision-makers\nre-examining\noptions for\nan independent nuclear deterrent\ncritics\npoint to a deteriorating security environment\nrise in tensions with China\nTo address\nfears, the Review noted\ndetermination to “\ndeepen Australia’s alliance with the U\nS\n.”\nfears\ndrive\npolicy elites to resist any move\ntoward NFU.\nAustralia’s security\ndepends on “an end to unilateral decisions\nthat affect\nsecurity’.\nAustralia should\nensure\nthis next push doesn’t gain further traction and threaten\ncrisis of confidence", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The US can do it alone.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Effectiveness of Debris Removal\nA recent NASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others, in that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions (Liou and Johnson 2007). These more dangerous objects have masses of 1,000 to 1,500 kilograms and 2,500 to 3,000 kilograms; orbital inclinations of 70 to 75, 80 to 85, and 95 to 100 degrees; and orbital altitudes of 800 to 850, 950 to 1,000, and 1,450 to 1,500 kilometers. The study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment (Liou and Johnson 2007, 3). These results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits. This would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations. In other words, the countries responsible for the majority of the current space debris population—China, Russia, and the United States— not only should take responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Effectiveness of Debris Removal\nNASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others\nin that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions\nThe study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment\nThese results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits\nThis would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations.\nUnited States\nshould take responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately", "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 US can do it alone.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Effectiveness of Debris Removal\nA recent NASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others, in that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions (Liou and Johnson 2007). These more dangerous objects have masses of 1,000 to 1,500 kilograms and 2,500 to 3,000 kilograms; orbital inclinations of 70 to 75, 80 to 85, and 95 to 100 degrees; and orbital altitudes of 800 to 850, 950 to 1,000, and 1,450 to 1,500 kilometers. The study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment (Liou and Johnson 2007, 3). These results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits. This would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations. In other words, the countries responsible for the majority of the current space debris population—China, Russia, and the United States— not only should take responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately. \n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others\nannually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment\nthreat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits\nwould make effective space debris removal much more straightforward\nmanageable by one nation\nremoval systems", "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 US can do it alone.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Effectiveness of Debris Removal\nNASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others\nin that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions\nThe study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment\nThese results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits\nThis would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations.\nUnited States\nshould take responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately", "role": "user" }, { "content": "certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others\nstudy found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment\nthe threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits\npotentially manageable by one nation", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: They receive considerable support.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "(iii) Export cartels\nA cartel is an association of rivals agreeing to fix prices above the competitive level, limit output below the competitive level or allocate markets between or amongst themselves in order to maximise their profits.49 Cartels, generally, have been labelled as the ‘supreme evil of antitrust’50 and the ‘primary evil of global trade’.51 On the other hand, export cartels are cartels that only operate in foreign markets and do not directly affect the markets in the jurisdiction where the cartel members are located.52 While there is a consensus among the world’s competition authorities to prohibit hard-core cartels,53 there is lack of clarity and transparency surrounding the treatment of export cartels. It is argued that export cartels receive considerable political support,54 not only because of its benefits to the exporting country, but also because it is argued that export cartels are not necessarily pure evil like hard-core cartels.55 Export cartels may have the same goals as hard-core cartels – to fix prices or allocate markets – but they may also have strictly efficiency-enhancing goals such as sharing marketing and transportation costs.56\nAccording to economic theory, export cartels raise domestic producer welfare without diminishing domestic consumer welfare.57 Additional export revenues and increases in national welfare incentivises exporting States to tolerate, if not promote, export cartels.58 Furthermore, since the adverse effects of export cartels are externalised or felt exclusively by importing States, exporting States possessing the territorial jurisdiction over the cartel have very little interest in disciplining the conduct.59 On the other hand, importing States which have the motivation to prevent the conduct due to its anticompetitive effect and corresponding reduction in their consumer welfare do not have the territorial jurisdiction and must rather apply their competition laws extra-territorially to sanction the cartel.60 However, since exporting States are not motivated to sanction the cartel, or even induced to promote or tolerate the cartel because of its positive domestic effect, they may block any extraterritorial enforcement by the importing States through exemptions or non-cooperation.61 This conflicting interest presents a competition law enforcement dilemma on export cartels.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "export cartels receive considerable political support\nbecause\nthey may also have strictly efficiency-enhancing goals such as sharing marketing and transportation costs\nAdditional export revenues and increases in national welfare incentivises exporting States\npromote, export cartels\nsince the adverse effects of export cartels are externalised or felt exclusively by importing States, exporting States possessing the territorial jurisdiction over the cartel have very little interest in disciplining the conduct\nexporting States are not motivated to sanction the cartel\nbecause of its positive domestic effect", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: They receive considerable support.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "(iii) Export cartels\nA cartel is an association of rivals agreeing to fix prices above the competitive level, limit output below the competitive level or allocate markets between or amongst themselves in order to maximise their profits.49 Cartels, generally, have been labelled as the ‘supreme evil of antitrust’50 and the ‘primary evil of global trade’.51 On the other hand, export cartels are cartels that only operate in foreign markets and do not directly affect the markets in the jurisdiction where the cartel members are located.52 While there is a consensus among the world’s competition authorities to prohibit hard-core cartels,53 there is lack of clarity and transparency surrounding the treatment of export cartels. It is argued that export cartels receive considerable political support,54 not only because of its benefits to the exporting country, but also because it is argued that export cartels are not necessarily pure evil like hard-core cartels.55 Export cartels may have the same goals as hard-core cartels – to fix prices or allocate markets – but they may also have strictly efficiency-enhancing goals such as sharing marketing and transportation costs.56\nAccording to economic theory, export cartels raise domestic producer welfare without diminishing domestic consumer welfare.57 Additional export revenues and increases in national welfare incentivises exporting States to tolerate, if not promote, export cartels.58 Furthermore, since the adverse effects of export cartels are externalised or felt exclusively by importing States, exporting States possessing the territorial jurisdiction over the cartel have very little interest in disciplining the conduct.59 On the other hand, importing States which have the motivation to prevent the conduct due to its anticompetitive effect and corresponding reduction in their consumer welfare do not have the territorial jurisdiction and must rather apply their competition laws extra-territorially to sanction the cartel.60 However, since exporting States are not motivated to sanction the cartel, or even induced to promote or tolerate the cartel because of its positive domestic effect, they may block any extraterritorial enforcement by the importing States through exemptions or non-cooperation.61 This conflicting interest presents a competition law enforcement dilemma on export cartels.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "considerable political support\npromote, export cartels\nexternalised\npossess\nvery little interest\nnot motivated\npositive domestic effect", "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: They receive considerable support.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5", "role": "system" }, { "content": "export cartels receive considerable political support\nbecause\nthey may also have strictly efficiency-enhancing goals such as sharing marketing and transportation costs\nAdditional export revenues and increases in national welfare incentivises exporting States\npromote, export cartels\nsince the adverse effects of export cartels are externalised or felt exclusively by importing States, exporting States possessing the territorial jurisdiction over the cartel have very little interest in disciplining the conduct\nexporting States are not motivated to sanction the cartel\nbecause of its positive domestic effect", "role": "user" }, { "content": "export cartels receive considerable political support\nbecause\nthey\nhave\nefficiency-enhancing goals\nStates\npromote, export cartels\nsince\neffects\nare externalised\nStates possess\nvery little interest\ndisciplining\nconduct\nStates are not motivated to sanction\nbecause of\npositive domestic effect", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Memeing our disability is a key form of community building through the rhetorical performance in the 1ac.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "A long time ago, well before the COVID-19 pandemic, a sad, dark thing clawed its way into our social media feeds: depression memes. These memes, shared on social platforms such as Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and TikTok, date back to as early as 2016, although it’s hard to tell precisely. What we do know is that people (meme makers) have been saying to their audience (users with or without clinical depression and/or anxiety symptoms) that it’s okay to feel horrible and that if our therapist asks ‘What do we do when we feel this way?’ we do not reply ‘Add to cart’. The online world has given us clearance to lift the taboo (slightly) on mental health issues while simultaneously educating some boomers along the way, resulting in many users using memes ever since as the life raft they can be. [Fig. 1: ‘Therapist: And what do we say when we’re sad? Me: ADD TO CART Therapist: No.’, posted on reddit by @u/caprileen, accessed last on August 15, 2022. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/ comments/eh5vsc/add_to_cart/.] The pandemic and its lockdowns boosted this trend even further, keeping every meme maker out there not only locked inside their home with time to devote themselves to memes, but also making them rather gloomy. A foolproof recipe for a lot of memes about depression: enter depression memes, your newest, saddest trend. Depression Memes to the Rescue But what, can we wonder, while pretending to have a completely healthy, worry-free mind, do depression memes do for online users who suffer from (clinical) depression and/or anxiety? Research done by several professors from the Northumbria University, Newcastle shows that depression memes can help alleviate certain negative emotions, because ‘the use of humour itself may down-regulate negative and up-regulate positive emotions.’1 These memes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships to a greater extent than face-to-face disclosures.’2 On top of this, ‘perceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptoms.’3 And: depressed users tend to laugh harder at depression memes than the completely carefree folks out there, a sign that they cater to their audience quite nicely [Fig. 2: ‘I just think they’re neat’, posted on Instagram by @felixmeritisamsterdam, last accessed on August 15, 2022. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaPV7BhI3b8/. ] What these memes also do is show us the dire situation of mental healthcare and how it is severely lacking in many countries around the world. This is a different conversation altogether, yet it is interesting to note how, in being freely accessible on the internet for all without any waiting lists or huge medical bills, depression memes hold an even greater power for a community around mental issues. There are even online mental health coaches at the ready, although naturally their psychological merit is to be taken with a grain of salt. Psychologist and author Eleanor Morgan points out that ‘the way (mental health) coaches market themselves on social media feeds into the wider memefication of emotion. […] If this isn’t a clear emblem of capitalism and individualism, I’m not sure what is.’4 And there we have it: our old friend capitalism crashing the party uninvited once again. Morgan goes on to question the true therapeutic power of memes and the subsequent shared misery online when she asks exactly ‘how much self-awareness is really generated when we scroll away?’5 A valid question. But, for the sake of our own mental health—pun very much intended—let’s try to look at depression memes in a positive light. For example: we can look at the act of scrolling as an almost trance-like movement of the body, complete with some numbing of the mind perhaps, but we can also look at it through a cognitive lens and see how ‘our physical actions directly link to our thought processes’,6 because ‘we think kinesically, too’.7 This could mean that our body, although seemingly abandoned during (doom)scrolling is, in fact, pretty active and—dare we even say it?—stimulated. [Fig. 3: ‘I had no idea you could buy this, I’ve been just using vintage cameras’, posted on Instagram by @memes_on_film, last accessed on August 15, 2022. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CdL5LS_ ooOY/.] The (Dis)embodied User Has Feelings Too, You Know Let’s talk some more about bodies. We might be inclined to say that a user scrolling through memes—depressive or not—is letting one single finger do all the work for them, and is not bodily involved in the digital realm at all. But is this true? We can, at least, see how ‘new forms of “online” contact create new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’,8 which in turn means that ‘online encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.’9 Moreover, ‘technological boundaries, in a physical and social sense, are examples of embodiment and presence, e.g. the sense of someone else (through the avatars) being in “your” space.’10 We might have briefly thought to leave our body at the proverbial door of the internet but our mind knows best, for ‘the self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others.’11 What is also interesting in this regard is what happens to the neurons in our brain when we so much as see a representation (our good old meme) of an action: ‘The firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself.’12 And if we believe for a moment that a meme is enough of a representation of an action, then what are the neurological implications of looking at a depression meme cathartically dealing with severe and quite dark—excuse the language—shit? Are we not bound to leave this interaction a little bit changed, hopefully for the better? [Fig. 4: ‘We need a pill that makes you feel like you’re buying stuff online,’ Posted on Instagram by o_naww, last accessed on August 15, 2022. Source: .] There is, as neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett sees in Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain, something called the ‘language network’; brain regions that process language and control the insides of your body, for example guiding your heart rate up and down. Other people’s words have a direct effect on your brain activity and your bodily systems, so she writes, and your words have that same effect on other people.13 A.k.a.: if one reads a meme (Fig. 4) that says We need a pill that makes you feel like you’re buying stuff online, then perhaps the darkness that lives in their heart will briefly lit up, if only for a second. Scrolling through memes thus becomes a thing of rare beauty; an ingenious thought process all on its own. Cognitive Representation? Yes, Please Thinking even while we scroll mindlessly, you say? Let’s take this even further. What if we look at memes through a cognitive lens and see them not only as relatable and shareable—next to hopefully hilarious—but also as a tool for cognitive representation? Human cognition is always situated in a complex, sociocultural world and cannot be unaffected by it;14 thus our online world, packed as it is with sociological and cultural dimensions, is a hotbed for cognitive impulses in which the meme belongs to one or more cognitive levels of representation. Furthermore, if the ‘development of cognitive representation […] occurs through enactive, iconic and symbolic levels of representation’15 in which the iconic is image-based (recognizing pictures or diagrams as signifiers) and the symbolic is language (or symbol) based, then our online users can experience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes. Upon seeing this active cognitive load, what the brain does is encode past experience, processing it so that the experiences may prove relevant and useable in the present.16 A meme is a story for our brain to comprehend, react to, and link to other, past experiences—in this case, depressive experiences and how to deal with mental illness. The depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that. Now what would really make us feel better, is a little laugh... One Humor, Two Humor, Three Humor Within depression memes there are different kinds of humor being deployed, something especially interesting when comparing the way depressed users experience these as opposed to those without any symptoms. We already know that depressed users laugh harder than others at these memes. [Fig. 5: ‘Hello darkness my old friend. Darkness (2 days later): Sorry just saw this’, posted on Instagram by @disturbingzone, accessed last on August 15, 2022. Source:https://www.instagram. com/p/CdAil3Ms-EM/.] Studies—from the same researchers at the Northumbria University—further show how, compared to non-depressed individuals, those with symptoms of depression reported increased ratings of not only humor, but relatability, shareability, and mood-improving potential.17 Even better: 47 percent of individuals reported engaging with the memes as a way of alleviating psychiatric symptoms.18 It is, of course, rather uncontroversial to regard humor as a coping mechanism, thus also beneficial for those suffering from depression, but this does depend on what kind of humor is active within the meme. For it is true that ‘those experiencing symptoms of depression reported greater use of positive self-enhancing humor and less use of selfdefeating humor’,19 which is unsurprising given that a depressed user’s sense of self is most likely already deflated due to unstable mental health. Even though self-defeating or self-deprecating humor can be relatable indeed, it does not really lift one out of their misery. Liking a silly possum alone in an empty room with a text that says When you clean your room so good, the only trash left is you might give you a few laughs (Fig.6), but will most likely not make you feel any less like trash. (Is this a good time to interject how we value and respect you? You are not a possum.) [Fig. 6: ‘When u clean ur room so good that the only trash left is you’, posted on Reddit by @u/ superbloggity, last accessed on August 15, 2022. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/ comments/jrf69l/god_dont_make_no_trash/.] Against the Tyranny of Happiness So, if we’re not trash, then what are we (online)? Are we that all-too-healthy, skinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No. Depression memes, thankfully, help debunk this girl’s seemingly perfect life. By turning around the tiresome narrative of ‘happy’ social media in which we see individuals sharing their best selves, best engagement pictures, best smiling selfies—the so-called ‘happiness effect’ of an online persona—depression memes offer a glimpse of authenticity in this perpetually sunny virtual world. They are here to keep it real. They are here to let us know that, let’s be honest, we all sad here, bitch. And that’s totally fine. This honesty is, as researcher Lucie Chateau also sees it, precisely the depression meme's appeal: ‘To many, the irony that makes depression memes […] work is in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative.’20 The depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self, as ‘the meaning to be reconstructed in a depression meme consists of peeling back the layer that demands from us to act as the best, happiest, version of ourselves online.’21 So, the depression meme shows the internet’s true colors. Moreover, this habitat is intrinsic to its nature, or as Chateau puts it: ‘Online, the cultural context in which depression memes have risen to popularity is precisely that which gives them their reason for being. To understand this, we need to realize that, for the last decade, the symptoms that depression memes cultivate have been lying dormant under the tyranny of the happiness era of social media.’22 [Fig. 7: ‘Microdosing hell by waking up every morning’, posted on Instagram by @gothsdoingthings, accessed last on August 15, 2022. Source: ] And although it might seem like we’re rooting for depression memes even more by giving them the badge of online authenticity, if we briefly turn back to their neurological impact, we can ask ourselves how much is too much, or what it does to our brain when we become overexposed: the doom in doom-scrolling. David Eagleman, another neuroscientist, warns us in his book Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain that ‘what you spend your time on changes your brain. You’re more than what you eat; you become the information you digest.’23 Should we then, perhaps, collectively go on an anti-depressive information diet? The Stories We Tell Ourselves Depression memes can, in short, be seen as humorous tools for building community; activators for cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate, albeit briefly, depressive psychiatric symptoms; plus, an—again excuse the language—authentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there. While looking at depression memes, we realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure. Our mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes. To finish up with a personal favorite, here’s Oliver Sacks in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat, ending our tale on a positive note: ‘It is this narrative or symbolic power [of cognitive representation] which gives a sense of the world—a concrete reality in the imaginative form of symbol and story—when abstract thought can provide nothing at all.’24 Memes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A long time ago\na sad, dark thing clawed its way into our social media feeds: depression memes. These memes\ndate back to as early as 2016\npeople (meme makers) have been saying to their audience (users with or without clinical depression and/or anxiety symptoms) that it’s okay to feel horrible and that if our therapist asks ‘What do we do when we feel this way?’ we do not reply ‘Add to cart’. The online world has given us clearance to lift the taboo (slightly) on mental health issues while simultaneously educating some boomers along the way, resulting in many users using memes ever since as the life raft they can be.\n, keeping every meme maker out there not only locked inside their home with time to devote themselves to memes, but also making them rather gloomy\nwhat\ndo depression memes do for online users who suffer\nResearch\nshows that depression memes can help alleviate certain negative emotions, because ‘the use of humour itself may down-regulate negative and up-regulate positive emotions\nmemes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships to a greater extent than face-to-face disclosures\nperceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptoms\nPsychologist and author Eleanor Morgan points out that ‘the way (mental health) coaches market themselves on social media feeds into the wider memefication of emotion\nIf this isn’t a clear emblem of capitalism and individualism, I’m not sure what is.\nour old friend capitalism crashing the party uninvited once again\nMorgan goes on to question the\ntherapeutic power of memes\nfor the sake of our own mental health—pun very much intended—let’s try to look at depression memes in a positive light\nwe can look at the act of scrolling as a\ntrance-like movement of the body, complete with\nnumbing of the mind perhaps\nour physical actions directly link to our thought processes’,\nwe think kinesically, too’\nThis could mean that our body\nduring (doom)scrolling is, in fact, pretty active and—dare we even say it?—stimulated.\na user scrolling through memes—depressive or not\ncreate new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’\nonline encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.\ntechnological boundaries, in a physical and social sense, are examples of embodiment and presence\nthe sense of someone else\nWe might have briefly thought to leave our body at the proverbial door\nthe self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others\nto the neurons in our brain when we so much as see a representation\nThe firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself\nwhat are the neurological implications of looking at a depression meme cathartically dealing with severe and quite dark—excuse the language—shit? Are we not bound to leave this interaction a little bit changed, hopefully for the better?\nWhat if we look at memes through a cognitive lens and see them not only as relatable and shareable—next to hopefully hilarious—but also as a tool for cognitive representation?\nif the ‘development of cognitive representation\noccurs through enactive, iconic and symbolic levels of representation\nin which the iconic is image-based\nthen our online users can experience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes. Upon seeing this active cognitive load, what the brain does is encode past experience, processing it so that the experiences may prove relevant and useable in the present.\nA meme is a story for our brain to comprehend, react to, and link to other, past experiences—in this case, depressive experiences and how to deal with mental illness. The depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that. Now what would really make us feel better, is a little laugh...\nStudies\nshow how, compared to non-depressed individuals, those with symptoms of depression reported increased ratings of not only humor, but relatability, shareability, and mood-improving potential\nLiking a silly possum alone in an empty room with a text that says When you clean your room so good, the only trash left is you might give you a few laughs (Fig.6), but will most likely not make you feel any less like trash. (Is this a good time to interject how we value and respect you? You are not a possum.)\nSo, if we’re not trash, then what are we (online)? Are we that all-too-healthy, skinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No. Depression memes, thankfully, help debunk this girl’s seemingly perfect life\nTo many, the irony that makes depression memes\nwork is in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative\nThe depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self, as ‘the meaning to be reconstructed in a depression meme consists of peeling back the layer that demands from us to act as the best, happiest, version of ourselves online\n memes can\nbe seen as humorous tools for building community\nfor cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate,\n, an\nauthentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there. While looking at depression memes, we realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure. Our mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes.\nIt is this narrative or symbolic power [of cognitive representation] which gives a sense of the world—a concrete reality in the imaginative form of symbol and story—when abstract thought can provide nothing at all\nMemes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Memeing our disability is a key form of community building through the rhetorical performance in the 1ac.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "A long time ago\na sad, dark thing clawed its way into our social media feeds: depression memes. These memes\ndate back to as early as 2016\npeople (meme makers) have been saying to their audience (users with or without clinical depression and/or anxiety symptoms) that it’s okay to feel horrible and that if our therapist asks ‘What do we do when we feel this way?’ we do not reply ‘Add to cart’. The online world has given us clearance to lift the taboo (slightly) on mental health issues while simultaneously educating some boomers along the way, resulting in many users using memes ever since as the life raft they can be.\n, keeping every meme maker out there not only locked inside their home with time to devote themselves to memes, but also making them rather gloomy\nwhat\ndo depression memes do for online users who suffer\nResearch\nshows that depression memes can help alleviate certain negative emotions, because ‘the use of humour itself may down-regulate negative and up-regulate positive emotions\nmemes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships to a greater extent than face-to-face disclosures\nperceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptoms\nPsychologist and author Eleanor Morgan points out that ‘the way (mental health) coaches market themselves on social media feeds into the wider memefication of emotion\nIf this isn’t a clear emblem of capitalism and individualism, I’m not sure what is.\nour old friend capitalism crashing the party uninvited once again\nMorgan goes on to question the\ntherapeutic power of memes\nfor the sake of our own mental health—pun very much intended—let’s try to look at depression memes in a positive light\nwe can look at the act of scrolling as a\ntrance-like movement of the body, complete with\nnumbing of the mind perhaps\nour physical actions directly link to our thought processes’,\nwe think kinesically, too’\nThis could mean that our body\nduring (doom)scrolling is, in fact, pretty active and—dare we even say it?—stimulated.\na user scrolling through memes—depressive or not\ncreate new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’\nonline encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.\ntechnological boundaries, in a physical and social sense, are examples of embodiment and presence\nthe sense of someone else\nWe might have briefly thought to leave our body at the proverbial door\nthe self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others\nto the neurons in our brain when we so much as see a representation\nThe firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself\nwhat are the neurological implications of looking at a depression meme cathartically dealing with severe and quite dark—excuse the language—shit? Are we not bound to leave this interaction a little bit changed, hopefully for the better?\nWhat if we look at memes through a cognitive lens and see them not only as relatable and shareable—next to hopefully hilarious—but also as a tool for cognitive representation?\nif the ‘development of cognitive representation\noccurs through enactive, iconic and symbolic levels of representation\nin which the iconic is image-based\nthen our online users can experience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes. Upon seeing this active cognitive load, what the brain does is encode past experience, processing it so that the experiences may prove relevant and useable in the present.\nA meme is a story for our brain to comprehend, react to, and link to other, past experiences—in this case, depressive experiences and how to deal with mental illness. The depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that. Now what would really make us feel better, is a little laugh...\nStudies\nshow how, compared to non-depressed individuals, those with symptoms of depression reported increased ratings of not only humor, but relatability, shareability, and mood-improving potential\nLiking a silly possum alone in an empty room with a text that says When you clean your room so good, the only trash left is you might give you a few laughs (Fig.6), but will most likely not make you feel any less like trash. (Is this a good time to interject how we value and respect you? You are not a possum.)\nSo, if we’re not trash, then what are we (online)? Are we that all-too-healthy, skinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No. Depression memes, thankfully, help debunk this girl’s seemingly perfect life\nTo many, the irony that makes depression memes\nwork is in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative\nThe depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self, as ‘the meaning to be reconstructed in a depression meme consists of peeling back the layer that demands from us to act as the best, happiest, version of ourselves online\n memes can\nbe seen as humorous tools for building community\nfor cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate,\n, an\nauthentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there. While looking at depression memes, we realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure. Our mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes.\nIt is this narrative or symbolic power [of cognitive representation] which gives a sense of the world—a concrete reality in the imaginative form of symbol and story—when abstract thought can provide nothing at all\nMemes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "that if our therapist asks ‘What do we do when we feel this way?’ we do not reply ‘Add to cart’. The online world has given us clearance to lift the taboo (slightly) on mental health issues while simultaneously educating some boomers along the way, resulting in many users using memes ever since as the life raft they can be.\nwhat\ndo depression memes do for online users who suffer\nResearch\nshows that depression memes can help alleviate certain negative emotions, because ‘the use of humour itself may down-regulate negative and up-regulate positive emotions\nmemes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships to a greater extent than face-to-face disclosures\nperceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptoms\nIf this isn’t a clear emblem of capitalism and individualism, I’m not sure what is.\nour old friend capitalism crashing the party uninvited once again\nfor the sake of our own mental health—pun very much intended—let’s try to look at depression memes in a positive light\nwe can look at the act of scrolling as a\ntrance-like movement of the body, complete with\nnumbing of the mind perhaps\nour physical actions directly link to our thought processes’,\nwe think kinesically, too’\nThis could mean that our body\nduring (doom)scrolling is, in fact, pretty active and—dare we even say it?—stimulated.\na user scrolling through memes—depressive or not\ncreate new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’\nonline encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.\nWe might have briefly thought to leave our body at the proverbial door\nthe self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others\nThe firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself\nAre we not bound to leave this interaction a little bit changed, hopefully for the better?\nWhat if we look at memes through a cognitive lens and see them not only as relatable and shareable—next to hopefully hilarious—but also as a tool for cognitive representation?\nthen our online users can experience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes. Upon seeing this active cognitive load, what the brain does is encode past experience, processing it so that the experiences may prove relevant and useable in the present.\nA meme is a story for our brain to comprehend, react to, and link to other, past experiences—in this case, depressive experiences and how to deal with mental illness. The depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that. Now what would really make us feel better, is a little laugh...\nLiking a silly possum alone in an empty room with a text that says When you clean your room so good, the only trash left is you might give you a few laughs (Fig.6), but will most likely not make you feel any less like trash. (Is this a good time to interject how we value and respect you? You are not a possum.)\nSo, if we’re not trash, then what are we (online)? Are we that all-too-healthy, skinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No. Depression memes, thankfully, help debunk this girl’s seemingly perfect life\nTo many, the irony that makes depression memes\nwork is in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative\nThe depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self, as ‘the meaning to be reconstructed in a depression meme consists of peeling back the layer that demands from us to act as the best, happiest, version of ourselves online\n memes can\nbe seen as humorous tools for building community\nfor cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate,\n, an\nauthentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there. While looking at depression memes, we realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure. Our mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes.\nIt is this narrative or symbolic power [of cognitive representation] which gives a sense of the world—a concrete reality in the imaginative form of symbol and story—when abstract thought can provide nothing at all\nMemes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.", "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: Memeing our disability is a key form of community building through the rhetorical performance in the 1ac.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "A long time ago\na sad, dark thing clawed its way into our social media feeds: depression memes. These memes\ndate back to as early as 2016\npeople (meme makers) have been saying to their audience (users with or without clinical depression and/or anxiety symptoms) that it’s okay to feel horrible and that if our therapist asks ‘What do we do when we feel this way?’ we do not reply ‘Add to cart’. The online world has given us clearance to lift the taboo (slightly) on mental health issues while simultaneously educating some boomers along the way, resulting in many users using memes ever since as the life raft they can be.\n, keeping every meme maker out there not only locked inside their home with time to devote themselves to memes, but also making them rather gloomy\nwhat\ndo depression memes do for online users who suffer\nResearch\nshows that depression memes can help alleviate certain negative emotions, because ‘the use of humour itself may down-regulate negative and up-regulate positive emotions\nmemes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships to a greater extent than face-to-face disclosures\nperceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptoms\nPsychologist and author Eleanor Morgan points out that ‘the way (mental health) coaches market themselves on social media feeds into the wider memefication of emotion\nIf this isn’t a clear emblem of capitalism and individualism, I’m not sure what is.\nour old friend capitalism crashing the party uninvited once again\nMorgan goes on to question the\ntherapeutic power of memes\nfor the sake of our own mental health—pun very much intended—let’s try to look at depression memes in a positive light\nwe can look at the act of scrolling as a\ntrance-like movement of the body, complete with\nnumbing of the mind perhaps\nour physical actions directly link to our thought processes’,\nwe think kinesically, too’\nThis could mean that our body\nduring (doom)scrolling is, in fact, pretty active and—dare we even say it?—stimulated.\na user scrolling through memes—depressive or not\ncreate new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’\nonline encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.\ntechnological boundaries, in a physical and social sense, are examples of embodiment and presence\nthe sense of someone else\nWe might have briefly thought to leave our body at the proverbial door\nthe self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others\nto the neurons in our brain when we so much as see a representation\nThe firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself\nwhat are the neurological implications of looking at a depression meme cathartically dealing with severe and quite dark—excuse the language—shit? Are we not bound to leave this interaction a little bit changed, hopefully for the better?\nWhat if we look at memes through a cognitive lens and see them not only as relatable and shareable—next to hopefully hilarious—but also as a tool for cognitive representation?\nif the ‘development of cognitive representation\noccurs through enactive, iconic and symbolic levels of representation\nin which the iconic is image-based\nthen our online users can experience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes. Upon seeing this active cognitive load, what the brain does is encode past experience, processing it so that the experiences may prove relevant and useable in the present.\nA meme is a story for our brain to comprehend, react to, and link to other, past experiences—in this case, depressive experiences and how to deal with mental illness. The depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that. Now what would really make us feel better, is a little laugh...\nStudies\nshow how, compared to non-depressed individuals, those with symptoms of depression reported increased ratings of not only humor, but relatability, shareability, and mood-improving potential\nLiking a silly possum alone in an empty room with a text that says When you clean your room so good, the only trash left is you might give you a few laughs (Fig.6), but will most likely not make you feel any less like trash. (Is this a good time to interject how we value and respect you? You are not a possum.)\nSo, if we’re not trash, then what are we (online)? Are we that all-too-healthy, skinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No. Depression memes, thankfully, help debunk this girl’s seemingly perfect life\nTo many, the irony that makes depression memes\nwork is in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative\nThe depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self, as ‘the meaning to be reconstructed in a depression meme consists of peeling back the layer that demands from us to act as the best, happiest, version of ourselves online\n memes can\nbe seen as humorous tools for building community\nfor cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate,\n, an\nauthentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there. While looking at depression memes, we realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure. Our mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes.\nIt is this narrative or symbolic power [of cognitive representation] which gives a sense of the world—a concrete reality in the imaginative form of symbol and story—when abstract thought can provide nothing at all\nMemes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "memes also provide the user with a virtual social community and mutual understanding; we can even see how ‘online self-disclosure is theorized to enhance relationships\nperceived social support through online interaction appears beneficial in reducing psychiatric symptom\nfor the sake of our own mental health\nlet’s try to look at\nmemes in a positive light\nwe can look at\nscrolling as a\ntrance-like movement of the body\nour body\nduring\ndoom)scrolling is\npretty active\na user scrolling through memes\ncreate new forms of cyberculture, and cybersubjectivity’\nonline encounters are seen as new ways in which the individual is embodied.\nWe might\nleave our body at the\ndoor\nthe self and the body can only be formed from the imaginary perspective of others\nto the neurons\nwhen we\nsee a representation\nThe firing of the neuron occurs as if the observer were actually carrying out the act itself\nusers\nexperience cognitive recognition from the memetic narratives existing within depression memes.\nThe depression meme not only makes us feel seen, it makes our brain feel seen. Thanks, honey. We needed that.\nAre we that\nskinny blonde girl that uploads a video of what she eats every day, a diet consisting solely of broccoli and vegan chicken? No\nDepression memes\nhelp debunk this\nseemingly perfect life\nthe irony that makes depression memes\nis in their subversion of the happiness effect and the authenticity imperative\nThe depression meme lets us be our truest, freest, most miserable self\nmemes can\nbe\nhumorous tools for building community\nfor cognitive representation that sizzles through not only our brains but also our bodies; tools that elevate,\nan\nauthentic fuck you to all the fake, not-really-that-happy online personas out there\nwe realize that not only are we not trash, we are treasure\nOur mind and body react as one, even online, making stories in our heads where there once were only memes\nMemes can be our symbols, our stories, our fuel for a healthy mind. We’re not lonely, for we will always have memes.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Their faith in some ethereal social order is cruelly optimistic and will inevitably reproduce black ressentiment and anti-blackness – only recognizing blackness as the metaphysical foil of the Political through a nihilistic refusal of their redemptive project can create a space for black life", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Throughout this essay, I have argued that the Politics of hope preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering. This preservation amounts to an exploitation of hope—when the Political colonizes the spiritual principle of hope and puts it in the service of extending the “will to power” of an anti-black [End Page 242] organization of existence. The Politics of hope, then, is bound up with metaphysical violence, and this violence masquerades as a “solution” to the problem of anti-blackness. Temporal linearity, perfection, betterment, struggle, work, and utopian futurity are conceptual instruments of the Political that will never obviate black suffering or anti-black violence; these concepts only serve to reproduce the conditions that render existence unbearable for blacks. Political theologians and black optimists avoid the immediacy of black suffering, the horror of anti-black pulverization, and place relief in a “not-yet-but-is (maybe)-to-come-social order” that, itself, can do little more but admonish blacks to survive to keep struggling. Political hope becomes a vicious and abusive cycle of struggle—it mirrors the Lacanian drive, and we encircle an object (black freedom, justice, relief, redress, equality, etc.) that is inaccessible because it doesn’t really exist. The political theologian and black optimist, then, propose a collective Jouissance as an answer to black suffering—finding the joy in struggle, the victory in toil, and the satisfaction in inefficacious action. We continue to “struggle” and “work” as black youth are slaughtered daily, black bodies are incarcerated as forms of capital, black infant mortality rates are soaring, and hunger is disabling the bodies, minds, and spirits of desperate black youth. In short, these conditions are deep metaphysical problems—the sadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination—and “work” and “struggle” avoid the terrifying fact that the world depends on black death to sustain itself. Black nihilism attempts to break this “drive”—to stop it in its tracks, as it were—and to end the cycle of insanity [absurdity] that political hope perpetuates. The question that remains is a question often put to the black nihilist: what is the point? This compulsory geometrical structuring of thought—all knowledge must submit to, and is reducible to, a point—it is an epistemic flicker of certainty, determination, and, to put it bluntly, life. “The point” exists for life; it enlivens, enables, and sustains knowledge. Thought outside of this mandatory point is illegible and useless. To write outside of the “episteme of life” and its grammar will require a position outside of this point, a position somewhere in the infinite horizon of thought (perhaps this is what Heidegger wanted to do with his reconfiguration of thought). Writing in this way is inherently subversive and refuses the geometry of thought. Nevertheless, the [End Page 243] nihilist is forced to enunciate his refusal through a “point,” a point that is contradictory and paradoxical all at once. To say that the point of this essay is that “the point” is fraudulent—its promise of clarity and life are inadequate—will not satisfy the hunger of disciplining the nihilist and insisting that one undermine the very ground upon which one stands. Black nihilistic hermeneutics resists “the point” but is subjected to it to have one’s voice heard within the marketplace of ideas. The “point” of this essay is that political hope is pointless. Black suffering is an essential part of the world, and placing hope in the very structure that sustains metaphysical violence, the Political, will never resolve anything. This is why the black nihilist speaks of “exploited hope,” and the black nihilist attempts to wrest hope from the clutches of the Political. Can we think of hope outside the Political? Must “salvation” translate into a political grammar or a political program? The nihilist, then, hopes for the end of political hope and its metaphysical violence. Nihilism is not antithetical to hope; it does not extinguish hope but reconfigures it. Hope is the foundation of the black nihilistic hermeneutic. In “Blackness and Nothingness,” Fred Moten (2013) conceptualizes blackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics, something that has the ability to unravel, to disable [stultify], and to destroy anti-blackness. If we read Vattimo through Moten’s brilliant analysis, we can suggest that blackness is the limit that Heidegger and Nietzsche were really after. It is a “blackened” world that will ultimately end metaphysics, but putting an end to metaphysics will also put an end to the world itself—this is the nihilism that the black nihilist must theorize through. This is a far cry from what we call “anarchy,” however. The black nihilist has as little faith in the metaphysical reorganization of society through anarchy than [t]he[y] does in traditional forms of political existence. The black nihilist offers political apostasy as the spiritual practice of denouncing metaphysical violence, black suffering, and the idol of anti-blackness. The act of renouncing will not change political structures or offer a political program; instead, it is the act of retrieving the spiritual concept of hope from the captivity of the Political. Ultimately, it is impossible to end metaphysics without ending blackness, and the black nihilist will never be able to withdraw from the Political completely without a certain death-drive or being-toward-death. This is the essence of black [End Page 244] suffering: the lack of reprieve from metaphysics, the tormenting complicity in the reproduction of violence, and the lack of a coherent grammar to articulate these dilemmas. After contemplating these issues for some time in my office, I decided to take a train home. As I awaited my train in the station, an older black woman asked me about the train schedule and when I would expect the next train headed toward Dupont Circle. When I told her the trains were running slowly, she began to talk about the government shutdown. “They don’t care anything about us, you know,” she said. “We elect these people into office, we vote for them, and they watch black people suffer and have no intentions of doing anything about it.” I shook my head in agreement and listened intently. “I’m going to stop voting, and supporting this process; why should I keep doing this and our people continue to suffer,” she said. I looked at her and said, “I don’t know ma’am; I just don’t understand it myself.” She then laughed and thanked me for listening to her—as if our conversation were somewhat cathartic. “You know, people think you’re crazy when you say things like this,” she said giving me a wink. “Yes they do,” I said. “But I am a free woman,” she emphasized “and I won’t go back.” Shocked, I smiled at her, and she winked at me; at that moment I realized that her wisdom and courage penetrated my mind and demanded answers. I’ve thought about this conversation for some time, and it is for this reason I had to write this essay. To the brave woman at the train station, I must say you are not crazy at all but thinking outside of metaphysical time, space, and violence. Ultimately, we must hope for the end of political hope.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the Politics of hope preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering. This preservation amounts to an exploitation of hope—when the Political colonizes the spiritual principle of hope and puts it in the service of extending the “will to power” of an anti-black\norganization of existence. The Politics of hope, then, is bound up with metaphysical violence, and this violence masquerades as a “solution” to the problem of anti-blackness. Temporal linearity, perfection, betterment, struggle, work, and utopian futurity are conceptual instruments of the Political that will never obviate black suffering or anti-black violence; these concepts only serve to reproduce the conditions that render existence unbearable for blacks. Political theologians and black optimists avoid the immediacy of black suffering, the horror of anti-black pulverization, and place relief in a “not-yet-but-is (maybe)-to-come-social order” that, itself, can do little more but admonish blacks to survive to keep struggling. Political hope becomes a vicious and abusive cycle of struggle—it mirrors the Lacanian drive, and we encircle an object (black freedom, justice, relief, redress, equality, etc.) that is inaccessible because it doesn’t really exist. The political theologian and black optimist, then, propose a collective Jouissance as an answer to black suffering—finding the joy in struggle, the victory in toil, and the satisfaction in inefficacious action. We continue to “struggle” and “work” as black youth are slaughtered daily, black bodies are incarcerated as forms of capital, black infant mortality rates are soaring, and hunger is disabling the bodies, minds, and spirits of desperate black youth\nthese conditions are deep metaphysical problems—the sadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination—and “work” and “struggle” avoid the terrifying fact that the world depends on black death to sustain itself. Black nihilism attempts to break this “drive”—to stop it in its tracks, as it were—and to end the cycle of\n[absurdity] that political hope perpetuates. The question that remains is a question often put to the black nihilist: what is the point? This compulsory geometrical structuring of thought—all knowledge must submit to, and is reducible to, a point—it is an epistemic flicker of certainty, determination, and, to put it bluntly, life\nThought outside of this mandatory point is illegible and useless. To write outside of the “episteme of life” and its grammar will require a position outside of this point, a position somewhere in the infinite horizon of thought\nWriting in this way is inherently subversive and refuses the geometry of thought. Nevertheless, the\nnihilist is forced to enunciate his refusal through a “point,” a point that is contradictory and paradoxical all at once. To say that the point of this essay is that “the point” is fraudulent—its promise of clarity and life are inadequate—will not satisfy the hunger of disciplining the nihilist and insisting that one undermine the very ground upon which one stands. Black nihilistic hermeneutics resists “the point” but is subjected to it to have one’s voice heard within the marketplace of ideas. The “point” of this essay is that political hope is pointless. Black suffering is an essential part of the world, and placing hope in the very structure that sustains metaphysical violence, the Political, will never resolve anything. This is why the black nihilist speaks of “exploited hope,” and the black nihilist attempts to wrest hope from the clutches of the Political. Can we think of hope outside the Political? Must “salvation” translate into a political grammar or a political program? The nihilist, then, hopes for the end of political hope and its metaphysical violence. Nihilism is not antithetical to hope; it does not extinguish hope but reconfigures it. Hope is the foundation of the black nihilistic hermeneutic.\nMoten\nconceptualizes blackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics, something that has the ability to unravel, to\n[stultify], and to destroy anti-blackness\nblackness is the limit that Heidegger and Nietzsche were really after. It is a “blackened” world that will ultimately end metaphysics, but putting an end to metaphysics will also put an end to the world itself—this is the nihilism that the black nihilist must theorize through. This is a far cry from what we call “anarchy,” however. The black nihilist has as little faith in the metaphysical reorganization of society through anarchy than [t]he[y] does in traditional forms of political existence. The black nihilist offers political apostasy as the spiritual practice of denouncing metaphysical violence, black suffering, and the idol of anti-blackness. The act of renouncing will not change political structures or offer a political program; instead, it is the act of retrieving the spiritual concept of hope from the captivity of the Political. Ultimately, it is impossible to end metaphysics without ending blackness, and the black nihilist will never be able to withdraw from the Political completely without a certain death-drive or being-toward-death. This is the essence of black\nsuffering: the lack of reprieve from metaphysics, the tormenting complicity in the reproduction of violence, and the lack of a coherent grammar to articulate these dilemmas. After contemplating these issues for some time in my office, I decided to take a train home. As I awaited my train in the station, an older black woman asked me about the train schedule\nWhen I told her the trains were running slowly, she began to talk about the government shutdown. “They don’t care anything about us, you know,” she said.\n“I’m going to stop voting, and supporting this process\nshe said\nYou know, people think you’re crazy when you say things like this\nBut I am a free woman,” she emphasized “and I won’t go back.”\nat that moment I realized that her wisdom and courage penetrated my mind and demanded answers\nTo the brave woman at the train station, I must say you are not crazy at all but thinking outside of metaphysical time, space, and violence. Ultimately, we must hope for the end of political hope", "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 faith in some ethereal social order is cruelly optimistic and will inevitably reproduce black ressentiment and anti-blackness – only recognizing blackness as the metaphysical foil of the Political through a nihilistic refusal of their redemptive project can create a space for black life", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the Politics of hope preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering. This preservation amounts to an exploitation of hope—when the Political colonizes the spiritual principle of hope and puts it in the service of extending the “will to power” of an anti-black\norganization of existence. The Politics of hope, then, is bound up with metaphysical violence, and this violence masquerades as a “solution” to the problem of anti-blackness. Temporal linearity, perfection, betterment, struggle, work, and utopian futurity are conceptual instruments of the Political that will never obviate black suffering or anti-black violence; these concepts only serve to reproduce the conditions that render existence unbearable for blacks. Political theologians and black optimists avoid the immediacy of black suffering, the horror of anti-black pulverization, and place relief in a “not-yet-but-is (maybe)-to-come-social order” that, itself, can do little more but admonish blacks to survive to keep struggling. Political hope becomes a vicious and abusive cycle of struggle—it mirrors the Lacanian drive, and we encircle an object (black freedom, justice, relief, redress, equality, etc.) that is inaccessible because it doesn’t really exist. The political theologian and black optimist, then, propose a collective Jouissance as an answer to black suffering—finding the joy in struggle, the victory in toil, and the satisfaction in inefficacious action. We continue to “struggle” and “work” as black youth are slaughtered daily, black bodies are incarcerated as forms of capital, black infant mortality rates are soaring, and hunger is disabling the bodies, minds, and spirits of desperate black youth\nthese conditions are deep metaphysical problems—the sadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination—and “work” and “struggle” avoid the terrifying fact that the world depends on black death to sustain itself. Black nihilism attempts to break this “drive”—to stop it in its tracks, as it were—and to end the cycle of\n[absurdity] that political hope perpetuates. The question that remains is a question often put to the black nihilist: what is the point? This compulsory geometrical structuring of thought—all knowledge must submit to, and is reducible to, a point—it is an epistemic flicker of certainty, determination, and, to put it bluntly, life\nThought outside of this mandatory point is illegible and useless. To write outside of the “episteme of life” and its grammar will require a position outside of this point, a position somewhere in the infinite horizon of thought\nWriting in this way is inherently subversive and refuses the geometry of thought. Nevertheless, the\nnihilist is forced to enunciate his refusal through a “point,” a point that is contradictory and paradoxical all at once. To say that the point of this essay is that “the point” is fraudulent—its promise of clarity and life are inadequate—will not satisfy the hunger of disciplining the nihilist and insisting that one undermine the very ground upon which one stands. Black nihilistic hermeneutics resists “the point” but is subjected to it to have one’s voice heard within the marketplace of ideas. The “point” of this essay is that political hope is pointless. Black suffering is an essential part of the world, and placing hope in the very structure that sustains metaphysical violence, the Political, will never resolve anything. This is why the black nihilist speaks of “exploited hope,” and the black nihilist attempts to wrest hope from the clutches of the Political. Can we think of hope outside the Political? Must “salvation” translate into a political grammar or a political program? The nihilist, then, hopes for the end of political hope and its metaphysical violence. Nihilism is not antithetical to hope; it does not extinguish hope but reconfigures it. Hope is the foundation of the black nihilistic hermeneutic.\nMoten\nconceptualizes blackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics, something that has the ability to unravel, to\n[stultify], and to destroy anti-blackness\nblackness is the limit that Heidegger and Nietzsche were really after. It is a “blackened” world that will ultimately end metaphysics, but putting an end to metaphysics will also put an end to the world itself—this is the nihilism that the black nihilist must theorize through. This is a far cry from what we call “anarchy,” however. The black nihilist has as little faith in the metaphysical reorganization of society through anarchy than [t]he[y] does in traditional forms of political existence. The black nihilist offers political apostasy as the spiritual practice of denouncing metaphysical violence, black suffering, and the idol of anti-blackness. The act of renouncing will not change political structures or offer a political program; instead, it is the act of retrieving the spiritual concept of hope from the captivity of the Political. Ultimately, it is impossible to end metaphysics without ending blackness, and the black nihilist will never be able to withdraw from the Political completely without a certain death-drive or being-toward-death. This is the essence of black\nsuffering: the lack of reprieve from metaphysics, the tormenting complicity in the reproduction of violence, and the lack of a coherent grammar to articulate these dilemmas. After contemplating these issues for some time in my office, I decided to take a train home. As I awaited my train in the station, an older black woman asked me about the train schedule\nWhen I told her the trains were running slowly, she began to talk about the government shutdown. “They don’t care anything about us, you know,” she said.\n“I’m going to stop voting, and supporting this process\nshe said\nYou know, people think you’re crazy when you say things like this\nBut I am a free woman,” she emphasized “and I won’t go back.”\nat that moment I realized that her wisdom and courage penetrated my mind and demanded answers\nTo the brave woman at the train station, I must say you are not crazy at all but thinking outside of metaphysical time, space, and violence. Ultimately, we must hope for the end of political hope", "role": "user" }, { "content": "preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering\nexploitation of hope\nthe Political colonizes the spiritual principle of hope\nanti-black\norganization of existence\nbound up with metaphysical violence\nmasquerades as a “solution”\nTemporal linearity\nperfection\nbetterment\nstruggle\nwork\nutopian futurity\nnever obviate black suffering or anti-black violence\nreproduce the conditions that render existence unbearable for blacks\nplace relief in a “not-yet-but-is (maybe)-to-come-social order”\ncan do little more but admonish blacks to survive to keep struggling\nvicious and abusive cycle of struggle\nmirrors the Lacanian drive\ndoesn’t really exist\ncollective Jouissance as an answer\njoy in struggle\nvictory in toil\nsatisfaction in inefficacious action\nblack youth are slaughtered daily\nblack bodies are incarcerated as forms of capital\nblack infant mortality rates are soaring\nhunger is disabling the bodies, minds, and spirits of desperate black youth\nthese conditions are deep metaphysical problems\nsadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination\nthe world depends on black death to sustain itself\nbreak this “drive”\nstop it in its tracks\nend the cycle of\n[absurdity]\nwhat is the point?\ncompulsory geometrical structuring of thought\nmust submit to, and is reducible to, a point\nillegible and useless\nwrite outside of the “episteme of life” and its grammar\noutside of this point\nsomewhere in the infinite horizon of thought\nWriting\ninherently subversive\nrefuses the geometry of thought\nthat the point of this essay is that “the point” is fraudulent\nwill not satisfy the hunger of disciplining the nihilist\nresists “the point”\nsubjected to it\nThe “point” of this essay is that political hope is pointless\nBlack suffering is an essential part of the world\nsustains metaphysical violence\nwrest hope from the clutches of the Political\noutside the Political?\nNihilism is not antithetical to hope; it does not extinguish hope but reconfigures it\nblackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics\nunravel\nstultify\ndestroy anti-blackness\nend metaphysics\nput an end to the world itself\nfar cry from what we call “anarchy\nlittle faith in the metaphysical reorganization of society through anarchy\npolitical apostasy\ndenouncing metaphysical violence, black suffering, and the idol of anti-blackness\nretrieving the spiritual concept of hope from the captivity of the Political\nit is impossible to end metaphysics without ending blackness\ndeath-drive or being-toward-death\nthe lack of reprieve from metaphysics\ntormenting complicity\nlack of a coherent grammar\nstop voting, and supporting this process\nfree woman\nyou are not crazy at all but thinking outside of metaphysical time, space, and violence. Ultimately, we must hope for the end of political hope", "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 faith in some ethereal social order is cruelly optimistic and will inevitably reproduce black ressentiment and anti-blackness – only recognizing blackness as the metaphysical foil of the Political through a nihilistic refusal of their redemptive project can create a space for black life\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Throughout this essay, I have argued that the Politics of hope preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering. This preservation amounts to an exploitation of hope—when the Political colonizes the spiritual principle of hope and puts it in the service of extending the “will to power” of an anti-black [End Page 242] organization of existence. The Politics of hope, then, is bound up with metaphysical violence, and this violence masquerades as a “solution” to the problem of anti-blackness. Temporal linearity, perfection, betterment, struggle, work, and utopian futurity are conceptual instruments of the Political that will never obviate black suffering or anti-black violence; these concepts only serve to reproduce the conditions that render existence unbearable for blacks. Political theologians and black optimists avoid the immediacy of black suffering, the horror of anti-black pulverization, and place relief in a “not-yet-but-is (maybe)-to-come-social order” that, itself, can do little more but admonish blacks to survive to keep struggling. Political hope becomes a vicious and abusive cycle of struggle—it mirrors the Lacanian drive, and we encircle an object (black freedom, justice, relief, redress, equality, etc.) that is inaccessible because it doesn’t really exist. The political theologian and black optimist, then, propose a collective Jouissance as an answer to black suffering—finding the joy in struggle, the victory in toil, and the satisfaction in inefficacious action. We continue to “struggle” and “work” as black youth are slaughtered daily, black bodies are incarcerated as forms of capital, black infant mortality rates are soaring, and hunger is disabling the bodies, minds, and spirits of desperate black youth. In short, these conditions are deep metaphysical problems—the sadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination—and “work” and “struggle” avoid the terrifying fact that the world depends on black death to sustain itself. Black nihilism attempts to break this “drive”—to stop it in its tracks, as it were—and to end the cycle of insanity [absurdity] that political hope perpetuates. The question that remains is a question often put to the black nihilist: what is the point? This compulsory geometrical structuring of thought—all knowledge must submit to, and is reducible to, a point—it is an epistemic flicker of certainty, determination, and, to put it bluntly, life. “The point” exists for life; it enlivens, enables, and sustains knowledge. Thought outside of this mandatory point is illegible and useless. To write outside of the “episteme of life” and its grammar will require a position outside of this point, a position somewhere in the infinite horizon of thought (perhaps this is what Heidegger wanted to do with his reconfiguration of thought). Writing in this way is inherently subversive and refuses the geometry of thought. Nevertheless, the [End Page 243] nihilist is forced to enunciate his refusal through a “point,” a point that is contradictory and paradoxical all at once. To say that the point of this essay is that “the point” is fraudulent—its promise of clarity and life are inadequate—will not satisfy the hunger of disciplining the nihilist and insisting that one undermine the very ground upon which one stands. Black nihilistic hermeneutics resists “the point” but is subjected to it to have one’s voice heard within the marketplace of ideas. The “point” of this essay is that political hope is pointless. Black suffering is an essential part of the world, and placing hope in the very structure that sustains metaphysical violence, the Political, will never resolve anything. This is why the black nihilist speaks of “exploited hope,” and the black nihilist attempts to wrest hope from the clutches of the Political. Can we think of hope outside the Political? Must “salvation” translate into a political grammar or a political program? The nihilist, then, hopes for the end of political hope and its metaphysical violence. Nihilism is not antithetical to hope; it does not extinguish hope but reconfigures it. Hope is the foundation of the black nihilistic hermeneutic. In “Blackness and Nothingness,” Fred Moten (2013) conceptualizes blackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics, something that has the ability to unravel, to disable [stultify], and to destroy anti-blackness. If we read Vattimo through Moten’s brilliant analysis, we can suggest that blackness is the limit that Heidegger and Nietzsche were really after. It is a “blackened” world that will ultimately end metaphysics, but putting an end to metaphysics will also put an end to the world itself—this is the nihilism that the black nihilist must theorize through. This is a far cry from what we call “anarchy,” however. The black nihilist has as little faith in the metaphysical reorganization of society through anarchy than [t]he[y] does in traditional forms of political existence. The black nihilist offers political apostasy as the spiritual practice of denouncing metaphysical violence, black suffering, and the idol of anti-blackness. The act of renouncing will not change political structures or offer a political program; instead, it is the act of retrieving the spiritual concept of hope from the captivity of the Political. Ultimately, it is impossible to end metaphysics without ending blackness, and the black nihilist will never be able to withdraw from the Political completely without a certain death-drive or being-toward-death. This is the essence of black [End Page 244] suffering: the lack of reprieve from metaphysics, the tormenting complicity in the reproduction of violence, and the lack of a coherent grammar to articulate these dilemmas. After contemplating these issues for some time in my office, I decided to take a train home. As I awaited my train in the station, an older black woman asked me about the train schedule and when I would expect the next train headed toward Dupont Circle. When I told her the trains were running slowly, she began to talk about the government shutdown. “They don’t care anything about us, you know,” she said. “We elect these people into office, we vote for them, and they watch black people suffer and have no intentions of doing anything about it.” I shook my head in agreement and listened intently. “I’m going to stop voting, and supporting this process; why should I keep doing this and our people continue to suffer,” she said. I looked at her and said, “I don’t know ma’am; I just don’t understand it myself.” She then laughed and thanked me for listening to her—as if our conversation were somewhat cathartic. “You know, people think you’re crazy when you say things like this,” she said giving me a wink. “Yes they do,” I said. “But I am a free woman,” she emphasized “and I won’t go back.” Shocked, I smiled at her, and she winked at me; at that moment I realized that her wisdom and courage penetrated my mind and demanded answers. I’ve thought about this conversation for some time, and it is for this reason I had to write this essay. To the brave woman at the train station, I must say you are not crazy at all but thinking outside of metaphysical time, space, and violence. Ultimately, we must hope for the end of political hope.\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the Politics of hope preserve metaphysical structures that sustain black suffering\n, perfection, betterment, struggle, work\nand utopian futurity are\ninstruments\nthat will never obviate\nsuffering\nthese\nplace relief in a “not-yet-but\n(maybe)-to-come-social order” that\ncan do little\nto keep struggling\nit mirrors\nblack freedom\nthat is inaccessible\na collective Jouissance\nfinding\nsatisfaction in inefficacious action.\nsadistic pleasure of metaphysical domination\nworld depends on black death to sustain itself\nthe nihilist\nresists “the point” but is subjected to it to have one’s voice heard\nplacing hope in the\nstructure that sustains metaphysical violence\nwill never resolve anything\nwrest hope from the clutches of the Political\nNihilism is not antithetical to hope\nit\nreconfigures it\nMoten\nconceptualizes blackness as a “pathogen” to metaphysics\nthat has the ability to\ndestroy anti-blackness\na “blackened” world\nwill\nend\nthe world itself\nlack of a coherent grammar\nwe must hope for the end of political hope", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 1. All TLAM-Ns are dismantled.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In addition, the U.S. has also considered developing the W93, but funding for the W93 is not currently designated in the 2021 and 2022 defense budgets and it is un- known if the program will continue. If developed, this would be yet another standard yield warhead that uses the same delivery vehicle as the low-yield W76-2. The U.S. does not currently have any nuclear SLCMs in the arsenal. However, it does have a history with the weapon as it still uses the TLAM cruise missile, which once had a nuclear version, the TLAM-N. All TLAM-Ns were dismantled during the Obama administration. As previously mentioned, the 2018 NPR called for an investigation into future SLCM-N technologies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the U.S.\nconsidered developing the W93, but funding\nis not\ndesignated\nAll TLAM-Ns were dismantled during the Obama administration", "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: 1. All TLAM-Ns are dismantled.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.9", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In addition, the U.S. has also considered developing the W93, but funding for the W93 is not currently designated in the 2021 and 2022 defense budgets and it is un- known if the program will continue. If developed, this would be yet another standard yield warhead that uses the same delivery vehicle as the low-yield W76-2. The U.S. does not currently have any nuclear SLCMs in the arsenal. However, it does have a history with the weapon as it still uses the TLAM cruise missile, which once had a nuclear version, the TLAM-N. All TLAM-Ns were dismantled during the Obama administration. As previously mentioned, the 2018 NPR called for an investigation into future SLCM-N technologies.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "U.S.\nconsidered\nthe W93, but funding\nis not\ndesignated\nAll TLAM-Ns were dismantled during the Obama administration", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: They also do not care about space.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Hawks and headline writers think space races are exciting too, especially the “new space race” between China and the United States. That’s why they keep referring to it—even though it doesn’t exist.\nHistoric changes are indeed afoot in the space sector. Private crewed spaceflight is about to come of age. Mobile robotic spacecraft are being built to rendezvous with satellites to service them. Vast swarms of broadband satellites are set to make the Internet truly global for the first time, and increase the number of spacecraft in orbit tenfold. Back on Earth, satellite imagery fed through artificial intelligence algorithms promises powerful insights into all manner of human activity. Dozens of countries are active in space and the number is growing all the time. The tired trope of the superpower space race does little to make sense of all this.\nWhat makes a race a race\nA race requires speed and competition. The US and Chinese space programs have displayed neither characteristic for decades.\nChina is not racing the United States, because the single-minded obsession of the Communist Party’s top leadership is to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. They are acutely sensitive to the dangers of ruinous competition for the sake of prestige, and understand that unsustainable fiscal spending poses a greater threat to national security than the US lead in space capabilities.\nThere is no sign that China is trying to outspend the United States. Its space budget is not publicly disclosed, but even the more generous estimates put it at less than one-quarter of what the US government spends on space.\nSustainability matters more to China. The Communist Party does not need to “beat” the US in order to impress the Chinese public and burnish its credentials as the champion of Chinese civilization. It just needs to demonstrate progress in achieving new milestones. Neither does China need to outclass the US in its military space capabilities. It just needs a convincing deterrent.\nThe US, meanwhile, is not racing because it is the leader by a wide margin and cannot therefore achieve a political consensus behind a need to rush. Not since the Space Shuttle has the US managed to stick to any truly revolutionary goal or program long enough to finish it.\nEach US president from George W. Bush onwards has ushered in a major change in direction. The Trump Administration has already made two. Its latest, the Artemis program to land the first woman on the Moon by 2024, tries to recapture the urgency of the space race. It echoes Apollo’s unreasonably tight deadline, but without commensurate funding and the sense of impending defeat, it looks very unlikely to achieve it.\nCalls to arms\nA variant of the US-China space race story is the “call to arms” op-ed, which claims that the Chinese alone are racing, while a dopey America risks falling behind unless urgent action is taken.\nThe facts tell a different story: China’s space capabilities fall far short of the US’s except in a few very narrow areas.\nThe US has more than three times as many satellites in orbit as China: around 1,000 versus around 300. SpaceX alone has over 60 percent of the global commercial launch market; China’s share has not exceeded 10 percent since 2011 and has fallen to a negligible level in the past couple of years.\nThe US has more powerful rockets, able to lift heavier payloads to higher orbits: the reusable SpaceX Falcon Heavy can lift 64 tonnes into low Earth orbit; China’s most powerful rocket, the single-use Long March 5B, can lift just 25 tonnes, and remains out of service following a launch failure in 2017.\nChina does have the ability to send astronauts into space, which the US currently lacks, but it has done so just six times since its first crewed launch in 2003. The equivalent timespan up to the US Space Shuttle’s retirement in 2011 saw more than 60. The US is poised to regain its crewed launch capability when SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner enter service—enter late, yes, but Chinese programs suffer delays due to technical problems as often as US ones.\nThe first test flights of NASA’s new deep space launch vehicle, the Space Launch System, and SpaceX’s next-generation launch system are planned next year. There is justified skepticism over that timetable, but China’s deep space launcher, the Long March 9, is still on the drawing board, with a rough target for a first test flight of 2030 and ample precedent to suggest it will be later.\nBoth countries have deep-space crewed spacecraft in the pipeline, but the NASA-ESA Orion has already been built, whereas China’s unnamed prototype is the equivalent of Elon’s red Tesla: an empty shell that will be test-launched next year because China wants something expendable to put on the maiden launch of its improved Long March 5.\nThe space station China plans to start building next year will be in low Earth orbit, while NASA’s Gateway will be a similarly sized space station orbiting the Moon. Bigelow Aerospace has built innovative soft-bodied modules for a new Earth-orbiting space station, one of which has already been tested on the ISS and outperformed expectations so spectacularly that its lifespan has been extended from two years to 12.\nChina has grabbed headlines by deliberately targeting vacant niches, such as the Micius experimental quantum communication satellite in 2016, and the landing of humankind’s first rover on the far side of the Moon in January this year. But that same month, NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft sent back photographs of an object in the Kuiper Belt now known as Arrokoth, the furthest celestial object ever visited by a spacecraft. Next year China plans to launch a 250-kilogram rover to Mars for the first time; at the same time, NASA will launch a one-tonne rover, its fifth.\nChina’s incipient Internet satellite constellations number in the hundreds; SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper in the thousands. China’s private launcher startups are at least a decade behind their US counterparts, with just one successful orbital launch so far.\nNone of these comparisons belittle China’s achievements—the country is the world’s clear number two space power—but they do indicate that China is not poised to overtake the US anytime soon.\nThat’s why the calls to arms ring hollow. China still lags too far behind for the spectre of Chinese “victory” in a notional race to be convincing enough to panic US politicians into coughing up the money needed to bridge the gap in capabilities between what their country has now and mooted next steps such as settling the Moon or landing a person on Mars.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Hawks and headline writers think space races are exciting\nespecially\nspace race” between China and the U\nS\nit doesn’t exist\nPrivate\nspace\nis about to come of age\nrobotic spacecraft are being built to rendezvous\nVast swarms of\nsat\ns are set to make\nInternet truly global\nsatellite imagery fed through a\ni\npromises powerful insights\nDozens of countries are active\nThe tired trope of the superpower space race does little to make sense of all this\nA race requires speed and competition. The US and Chinese space programs have displayed neither characteristic for decades\nChina is not racing the U\nS\nbecause the single-minded obsession of\ntop leadership is to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. They are acutely sensitive to\ndangers of\ncompetition f\nprestige, and\nunsustainable fiscal spending\nThere is no sign that China is trying to outspend the U\nS\nIts space budget is\nless than one-quarter of\nthe US\nThe US\nis not racing because it is the leader by a wide margin and cannot therefore achieve a political consensus behind a need to rush. Not since the Space Shuttle has the US managed to stick to any truly revolutionary goal or program long enough to finish it\nEach\npresident\nushered in a major change in direction\nTrump\nhas already made two\nA variant\nis the “call to arms” op-ed, which claims that the Chinese alone are racing, while a dopey America risks falling behind\nThe facts tell a different story: China’s space capabilities fall far short of the US’s except in a few very narrow areas\nUS has\nthree times as many satellites\nUS has more powerful rockets\nChina’s most powerful rocket\nremains out of service\nChina does have\nability to send astronauts into space\nbut\nhas done so just six times since\n2003\nThe US is poised to regain its crewed launch capability when SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner enter service\nChina is not poised to overtake the US anytime soon\nthe calls to arms ring hollow. China still lags too far behind for the spectre of\n“victory” in a notional race to be convincing", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: They also do not care about space.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Hawks and headline writers think space races are exciting\nespecially\nspace race” between China and the U\nS\nit doesn’t exist\nPrivate\nspace\nis about to come of age\nrobotic spacecraft are being built to rendezvous\nVast swarms of\nsat\ns are set to make\nInternet truly global\nsatellite imagery fed through a\ni\npromises powerful insights\nDozens of countries are active\nThe tired trope of the superpower space race does little to make sense of all this\nA race requires speed and competition. The US and Chinese space programs have displayed neither characteristic for decades\nChina is not racing the U\nS\nbecause the single-minded obsession of\ntop leadership is to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. They are acutely sensitive to\ndangers of\ncompetition f\nprestige, and\nunsustainable fiscal spending\nThere is no sign that China is trying to outspend the U\nS\nIts space budget is\nless than one-quarter of\nthe US\nThe US\nis not racing because it is the leader by a wide margin and cannot therefore achieve a political consensus behind a need to rush. Not since the Space Shuttle has the US managed to stick to any truly revolutionary goal or program long enough to finish it\nEach\npresident\nushered in a major change in direction\nTrump\nhas already made two\nA variant\nis the “call to arms” op-ed, which claims that the Chinese alone are racing, while a dopey America risks falling behind\nThe facts tell a different story: China’s space capabilities fall far short of the US’s except in a few very narrow areas\nUS has\nthree times as many satellites\nUS has more powerful rockets\nChina’s most powerful rocket\nremains out of service\nChina does have\nability to send astronauts into space\nbut\nhas done so just six times since\n2003\nThe US is poised to regain its crewed launch capability when SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner enter service\nChina is not poised to overtake the US anytime soon\nthe calls to arms ring hollow. China still lags too far behind for the spectre of\n“victory” in a notional race to be convincing", "role": "user" }, { "content": "U\nS\nit doesn’t exist\nspace\nsat\ns\na\ni\ntired trope\nspeed\ncompetition\nneither\ndecades\nnot racing\nU\nS\nsingle-minded obsession\nprestige\nunsustainable fiscal spending\nno sign\nU\nS\nless than one-quarter\nleader by a wide margin\npolitical consensus\nSpace Shuttle\nstick\ntwo\nChinese alone are racing\nfacts\ndifferent story\nfall far short\nthree times\nmore powerful rockets\nout of service\nsix times\nChina is not poised to overtake the US anytime soon\nring hollow\nconvincing", "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: They also do not care about space.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Hawks and headline writers think space races are exciting\nespecially\nspace race” between China and the U\nS\nit doesn’t exist\nPrivate\nspace\nis about to come of age\nrobotic spacecraft are being built to rendezvous\nVast swarms of\nsat\ns are set to make\nInternet truly global\nsatellite imagery fed through a\ni\npromises powerful insights\nDozens of countries are active\nThe tired trope of the superpower space race does little to make sense of all this\nA race requires speed and competition. The US and Chinese space programs have displayed neither characteristic for decades\nChina is not racing the U\nS\nbecause the single-minded obsession of\ntop leadership is to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union. They are acutely sensitive to\ndangers of\ncompetition f\nprestige, and\nunsustainable fiscal spending\nThere is no sign that China is trying to outspend the U\nS\nIts space budget is\nless than one-quarter of\nthe US\nThe US\nis not racing because it is the leader by a wide margin and cannot therefore achieve a political consensus behind a need to rush. Not since the Space Shuttle has the US managed to stick to any truly revolutionary goal or program long enough to finish it\nEach\npresident\nushered in a major change in direction\nTrump\nhas already made two\nA variant\nis the “call to arms” op-ed, which claims that the Chinese alone are racing, while a dopey America risks falling behind\nThe facts tell a different story: China’s space capabilities fall far short of the US’s except in a few very narrow areas\nUS has\nthree times as many satellites\nUS has more powerful rockets\nChina’s most powerful rocket\nremains out of service\nChina does have\nability to send astronauts into space\nbut\nhas done so just six times since\n2003\nThe US is poised to regain its crewed launch capability when SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner enter service\nChina is not poised to overtake the US anytime soon\nthe calls to arms ring hollow. China still lags too far behind for the spectre of\n“victory” in a notional race to be convincing", "role": "user" }, { "content": "space race” between China and\nU\nS\ndoesn’t exist\nrace requires speed and competition\nprograms\ndisplayed neither\nfor decades\nChina is not racing\nbecause\nobsession\nis\nsensitive to\nprestige, and\nunsustainable\nspending\nIts\nbudget is\nless than one-quarter\nUS\nUS\nis\nleader by a wide margin and cannot\nachieve\npolitical consensus behind a\nrush\nChina’s\ncapabilities fall far short\nUS has\nthree times\nsatellites\nmore powerful rockets\nChina is not poised to overtake\nanytime soon\ncalls\nring hollow", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2---Democratic biopolitics good---public health is key to prevent death and suffering.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Moreover, it is obvious that simply treating measures of public health, such as quarantines or ‘social distancing’, as biopolitics somehow misses their potential usefulness. In the absence of a vaccine or successful anti-viral treatments, these measures, coming from the repertoire of 19th century public health manuals, can reduce the burden, especially for vulnerable groups.\nThis is especially urgent if we recognize that even in advanced capitalist economies public health infrastructure has deteriorated and cannot actually stand the peak of the pandemic, unless measures to reduce the rate of its expansion are taken. \nOne might say that contra Agamben, the concept of ‘naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed, because of a collapsed public health system, than the attempt to adjust to the practical exigencies of social distancing or quarantine measures. In light of the above I would like to suggest a different return to Foucault. I think that sometimes we forget that Foucault had a highly relational conception of power practices.4 In this sense, it is legitimate to ask whether a democratic or even communist biopolitics is possible.\nTo put this question in a different way: Is it possible to have collective practices that actually help the health of populations, including large-scale behaviour modifications, without a parallel expansion of forms of coercion and surveillance? \nFoucault himself, in his late work, points towards such a direction, around the notions of truth, parrhesia and care of the self.5 In this highly original dialogue with ancient philosophy, in particular Hellenistic and Roman, he suggested an alternative politics of bios that combines individual and collective care, based on a certain obligation and courage to tell the truth, in non-coercive ways.\nIn such a perspective, the decisions for the reduction of movement and for social distancing in times of epidemics, or for not smoking in closed public spaces, or for avoiding individual and collective practices that harm the environment, would be the result of democratically discussed collective decisions based on the knowledge available and as part of a collective effort to care for others and ourselves. This means that from simple discipline we move to responsibility, in regards to others and then ourselves, and from suspending sociality to consciously transforming it. In such a condition, instead of a permanent individualized fear, which can break down any sense of social cohesion, we move towards the idea of collective effort, coordination and solidarity within a common struggle, elements that in such health emergencies can be equally important to medical interventions. \nThis offers the possibility of a democratic biopolitics. This can also be based on the democratization of knowledge. The increased access to knowledge, along with the need for popularization campaigns makes possible collective decision processes that are based on knowledge and understanding and not just the authority of experts.\nBiopolitics from below\nThe battle against HIV, the fight of stigma, the attempt to make people understand that it is not the disease of ‘high risk groups’, the demand for education on safe sex practices, the funding of the development of therapeutic measures and the access to public health services, would not have been possible without the struggle of movements such as ACT UP. One might say that this was indeed an example of a biopolitics from below.\nAnd in the current conjuncture, social movements have a lot of room to act. They can ask of immediate measures to help public health systems withstand the extra burden caused by the pandemic. They can point to the need for solidarity and collective self-organization during such a crisis, in contrast to individualized “survivalist” panics. They can insist on state power (and coercion) being used to channel resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions. They can organize struggles for paid sick leave and for an end to measures such as eviction. They can put their collective ingenuity in practice to create forms of support for the elderly and those without any assistance. They can project, in all possible ways, the fact that today the struggle against the pandemic is a struggle waged by labour, not capital, by doctors and nurses in understaffed public health systems, by precarious workers in the vital supply chains, by those that keep basics infrastructure running during the lock-down. And they can demand social change as a life-saving exigency.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "simply treating\npublic health\nas biopolitics\nmisses\npotential usefulness\nthese measures\ncan reduce the burden\nthe concept of ‘naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed, because of a collapsed public health system, than the attempt to adjust to the practical exigencies of social distancing or quarantine measures\nI would\nsuggest a different return to Foucault\nwe forget\nFoucault had a highly relational conception of power practices\nit is legitimate to ask whether a democratic or even communist biopolitics is possible\nIs it possible to have collective practices that actually help the health of populations\nFoucault himself\npoints towards such a direction\nhe suggested an alternative politics of bios\nbased on a certain obligation and courage to tell the truth, in non-coercive ways\nIn such a perspective, the decisions for the reduction of movement and for social\nor for not smoking\nor for avoiding individual and collective practices that harm the environment, would be the result of democratically discussed collective decisions based on the knowledge available and as part of a collective effort to care for others and ourselves. This means that\nwe move to responsibility\nand from suspending sociality to consciously transforming it. In such a condition, instead of a permanent individualized fear\nwe move towards the idea of collective effort, coordination and solidarity\nThis offers the possibility of a democratic biopolitics\nThe increased access to knowledge, along with the need for popularization campaigns makes possible collective decision processes that are based on knowledge and understanding\nsocial movements have a lot of room to act. They can ask of immediate measures to help public health systems withstand the extra burden\nThey can point to the need for solidarity and collective self-organization during such a crisis\nThey can insist on state power (and coercion) being used to channel resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions. They can organize struggles for paid sick leave\nThey can put their collective ingenuity in practice to create forms of support for the elderly and those without any assistance. They can project\nthe fact that today the struggle against the pandemic is a struggle waged by labour, not capital, by doctors and nurses in understaffed public health systems, by precarious workers in the vital supply chains, by those that keep basics infrastructure running during the lock-down. And they can demand social change as a life-saving exigency.", "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---Democratic biopolitics good---public health is key to prevent death and suffering.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Moreover, it is obvious that simply treating measures of public health, such as quarantines or ‘social distancing’, as biopolitics somehow misses their potential usefulness. In the absence of a vaccine or successful anti-viral treatments, these measures, coming from the repertoire of 19th century public health manuals, can reduce the burden, especially for vulnerable groups.\nThis is especially urgent if we recognize that even in advanced capitalist economies public health infrastructure has deteriorated and cannot actually stand the peak of the pandemic, unless measures to reduce the rate of its expansion are taken. \nOne might say that contra Agamben, the concept of ‘naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed, because of a collapsed public health system, than the attempt to adjust to the practical exigencies of social distancing or quarantine measures. In light of the above I would like to suggest a different return to Foucault. I think that sometimes we forget that Foucault had a highly relational conception of power practices.4 In this sense, it is legitimate to ask whether a democratic or even communist biopolitics is possible.\nTo put this question in a different way: Is it possible to have collective practices that actually help the health of populations, including large-scale behaviour modifications, without a parallel expansion of forms of coercion and surveillance? \nFoucault himself, in his late work, points towards such a direction, around the notions of truth, parrhesia and care of the self.5 In this highly original dialogue with ancient philosophy, in particular Hellenistic and Roman, he suggested an alternative politics of bios that combines individual and collective care, based on a certain obligation and courage to tell the truth, in non-coercive ways.\nIn such a perspective, the decisions for the reduction of movement and for social distancing in times of epidemics, or for not smoking in closed public spaces, or for avoiding individual and collective practices that harm the environment, would be the result of democratically discussed collective decisions based on the knowledge available and as part of a collective effort to care for others and ourselves. This means that from simple discipline we move to responsibility, in regards to others and then ourselves, and from suspending sociality to consciously transforming it. In such a condition, instead of a permanent individualized fear, which can break down any sense of social cohesion, we move towards the idea of collective effort, coordination and solidarity within a common struggle, elements that in such health emergencies can be equally important to medical interventions. \nThis offers the possibility of a democratic biopolitics. This can also be based on the democratization of knowledge. The increased access to knowledge, along with the need for popularization campaigns makes possible collective decision processes that are based on knowledge and understanding and not just the authority of experts.\nBiopolitics from below\nThe battle against HIV, the fight of stigma, the attempt to make people understand that it is not the disease of ‘high risk groups’, the demand for education on safe sex practices, the funding of the development of therapeutic measures and the access to public health services, would not have been possible without the struggle of movements such as ACT UP. One might say that this was indeed an example of a biopolitics from below.\nAnd in the current conjuncture, social movements have a lot of room to act. They can ask of immediate measures to help public health systems withstand the extra burden caused by the pandemic. They can point to the need for solidarity and collective self-organization during such a crisis, in contrast to individualized “survivalist” panics. They can insist on state power (and coercion) being used to channel resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions. They can organize struggles for paid sick leave and for an end to measures such as eviction. They can put their collective ingenuity in practice to create forms of support for the elderly and those without any assistance. They can project, in all possible ways, the fact that today the struggle against the pandemic is a struggle waged by labour, not capital, by doctors and nurses in understaffed public health systems, by precarious workers in the vital supply chains, by those that keep basics infrastructure running during the lock-down. And they can demand social change as a life-saving exigency.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed\npractical exigencies\ndemocratic or even communist biopolitics is possible\npolitics of bios\nresponsibility\ninstead of a permanent individualized fear\ndemocratic biopolitics\nstate power (and coercion) being used to channel resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions\nsupport for the elderly and those without any assistance\ndemand social change as a life-saving exigency", "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---Democratic biopolitics good---public health is key to prevent death and suffering.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Moreover, it is obvious that simply treating measures of public health, such as quarantines or ‘social distancing’, as biopolitics somehow misses their potential usefulness. In the absence of a vaccine or successful anti-viral treatments, these measures, coming from the repertoire of 19th century public health manuals, can reduce the burden, especially for vulnerable groups.\nThis is especially urgent if we recognize that even in advanced capitalist economies public health infrastructure has deteriorated and cannot actually stand the peak of the pandemic, unless measures to reduce the rate of its expansion are taken. \nOne might say that contra Agamben, the concept of ‘naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed, because of a collapsed public health system, than the attempt to adjust to the practical exigencies of social distancing or quarantine measures. In light of the above I would like to suggest a different return to Foucault. I think that sometimes we forget that Foucault had a highly relational conception of power practices.4 In this sense, it is legitimate to ask whether a democratic or even communist biopolitics is possible.\nTo put this question in a different way: Is it possible to have collective practices that actually help the health of populations, including large-scale behaviour modifications, without a parallel expansion of forms of coercion and surveillance? \nFoucault himself, in his late work, points towards such a direction, around the notions of truth, parrhesia and care of the self.5 In this highly original dialogue with ancient philosophy, in particular Hellenistic and Roman, he suggested an alternative politics of bios that combines individual and collective care, based on a certain obligation and courage to tell the truth, in non-coercive ways.\nIn such a perspective, the decisions for the reduction of movement and for social distancing in times of epidemics, or for not smoking in closed public spaces, or for avoiding individual and collective practices that harm the environment, would be the result of democratically discussed collective decisions based on the knowledge available and as part of a collective effort to care for others and ourselves. This means that from simple discipline we move to responsibility, in regards to others and then ourselves, and from suspending sociality to consciously transforming it. In such a condition, instead of a permanent individualized fear, which can break down any sense of social cohesion, we move towards the idea of collective effort, coordination and solidarity within a common struggle, elements that in such health emergencies can be equally important to medical interventions. \nThis offers the possibility of a democratic biopolitics. This can also be based on the democratization of knowledge. The increased access to knowledge, along with the need for popularization campaigns makes possible collective decision processes that are based on knowledge and understanding and not just the authority of experts.\nBiopolitics from below\nThe battle against HIV, the fight of stigma, the attempt to make people understand that it is not the disease of ‘high risk groups’, the demand for education on safe sex practices, the funding of the development of therapeutic measures and the access to public health services, would not have been possible without the struggle of movements such as ACT UP. One might say that this was indeed an example of a biopolitics from below.\nAnd in the current conjuncture, social movements have a lot of room to act. They can ask of immediate measures to help public health systems withstand the extra burden caused by the pandemic. They can point to the need for solidarity and collective self-organization during such a crisis, in contrast to individualized “survivalist” panics. They can insist on state power (and coercion) being used to channel resources from the private sector to socially necessary directions. They can organize struggles for paid sick leave and for an end to measures such as eviction. They can put their collective ingenuity in practice to create forms of support for the elderly and those without any assistance. They can project, in all possible ways, the fact that today the struggle against the pandemic is a struggle waged by labour, not capital, by doctors and nurses in understaffed public health systems, by precarious workers in the vital supply chains, by those that keep basics infrastructure running during the lock-down. And they can demand social change as a life-saving exigency.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "treating\npublic health\nas biopolitics\nmisses\nusefulness\nconcept of ‘naked life’ can better describe the pensioner on a waiting list for a respirator or an ICU bed\nthan\nattempt to adjust\npractical exigencies\nask whether\ndemocratic\nbiopolitics is possible\ninstead of a permanent individualized fea\nwe move towards the idea of collective effort,\nThis offers the possibility of a democratic biopolitics\nsocial movements\ninsist on state power\nto channel resources from the private sector\nsupport\nthose without\nassistance\ndemand social change", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Innovation critiques of the CWS are wrong---the plan causes inconsistent application and ignores current rapid pace of innovation.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Politicians and policy analysts have expressed concern about the growing size and impact of large digital-platform companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple. Some are advocating more aggressive antitrust enforcement or major changes to the law. Although competition policy can be improved, promoting consumer welfare should continue to guide antitrust enforcement in the United States.\nCritics claim that antitrust law, which is intended to condemn business practices that undermine competition or maintain monopolies, is being neglected as competition weakens across the economy. They claim that the failure to enforce antitrust law allows unchecked abuses — not just by digital platforms, but by powerful firms in other market segments as well.\nCritics also attribute this monopoly-abuse problem to antitrust law’s emphasis on the goal of promoting consumer welfare. They argue that the consumer-welfare standard should be ditched in favor of broader policy goals in order to “revitalize” antitrust as a powerful interventionist tool.\nBefore the 1970s, Supreme Court antitrust decisions generally reflected a “big is bad” philosophy. Those opinions often viewed antitrust as a means of protecting smaller companies. Many poorly understood business practices were condemned with no inquiry into their actual economic effects. Mergers fared particularly badly in court. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart lamented in 1966, the only consistency in government merger challenges was that “the Government always wins.”\nIn the late 1970s, we started to see the rise of the consumer welfare standard as courts changed their approach to antitrust in response to economic and legal scholarship revealing that large business size and market share often manifested wealth-creating efficiency, rather than poor economic performance. While continuing to summarily condemn hard-core cartel activity, courts began to apply case-specific economic analysis. This involved weighing the potential benefits resulting from a firm’s conduct against its harmful effects.\nIn 1979 the Supreme Court underscored the new approach in its Reiter v. Sonotone opinion, stating that “Congress designed the Sherman Act as a ‘consumer welfare prescription.’” Subsequent judicial decisions enunciated legal standards that seek to preserve incentives for business conduct that benefits consumers. These decisions have also granted dominant firms greater leeway to engage in aggressive competition to better satisfy consumers.\nIn parallel with judicial developments by the mid-1990s, Democratic and Republican enforcers adopted a bipartisan approach to federal antitrust enforcement that emphasized consumer-welfare promotion.\nOver the past few years, however, the consumer-welfare standard has come under siege. Critics of current antitrust policy cite the growing size and market share of dominant firms as signs of ineffective antitrust enforcement. These concerns were highlighted in 2020 studies by the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law and by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. They endorse digital platform regulation, new Federal Trade Commission rulemaking, and legislation to tighten antitrust laws, with a greater emphasis on condemning dominant firm behavior out of hand, without regard for consumer welfare. They would also pursue a broader range of objectives, such as promoting fairness, protecting labor rights, and limiting monopoly as measured by firm size and market share.\nIn February 2021, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) introduced legislation that would toughen the standard for evaluating mergers (preventing many out of hand, based on the size of the acquiring firm). Her proposal would also lower the bar for convicting a firm of illegal monopolization. Other expansive antitrust-reform proposals, including possible regulation or structural breakups of big platforms, may be considered in Congress. Recent antitrust-reform hearings in both the Senate and House have featured condemnations of the consumer-welfare standard.\nYet these critiques of consumer welfare miss the mark. Abandoning this approach in favor of broad-based interventionist antitrust policies would prove harmful.\nProposed reforms such as breaking up dominant firms or prohibiting most mergers and acquisitions are likely to make consumers worse off, sacrificing the cost reductions that result from one firm producing a growing share of output and integrating many complementary services.\nConsidering a broader range of conduct to be in violation of antitrust law would likely increase uncertainty for firms as they endeavor to compete to attract additional customers. Moreover, having to assign weights to ill-defined objectives of labor rights and fairness (among other new goals) would create confusion. The resulting decisions could be arbitrary and inconsistent w\n\n\nith the rule of law.\nFurthermore, oft-cited studies claiming that competition is weakening are based on questionable evidence. The 2020 Economic Report of the President showed that those studies rely on overbroad market definitions that tell us nothing about competition in specific markets, let alone across the entire economy.\nWhat’s more, while leading digital platforms often have large market shares, they still face competitive pressure from existing firms and startups to develop innovative new products and services. Indeed, market-leading platforms that fail to innovate can be displaced — just ask Yahoo and MySpace.\nFinally, the benefits that consumers derive from participating in some digital platforms will grow as the platforms expand their membership. Antitrust attacks aimed at “cutting monopoly platforms down to size” could undermine these benefits, harming consumers.\nThe antitrust consumer-welfare standard has served consumers well. Competitive forces have yielded a bounty of highly affordable and greatly enhanced digital products and services. The pace of innovation has been breathtaking. The last thing we should do is quickly impose new and amorphous antitrust restrictions that threaten this success story.\n\n\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Although competition policy can be improved, promoting consumer welfare should continue to guide antitrust enforcement in the United States\nCritics claim\nantitrust\nis being neglected as competition weakens\nthat\nfailure to enforce antitrust\nallows unchecked abuses — not just by digital platforms, but by powerful firms in other market segments\nCritics\nattribute this\nto antitrust law’s emphasis on the goal of promoting consumer welfare. They argue\nthe consumer-welfare standard should be ditched\nBefore the 1970s, Supreme Court antitrust decisions generally reflected a “big is bad” philosop\nMany poorly understood business practices were condemned with no inquiry into their actual economic effects. Mergers fared particularly badly in court\nIn the\n70s, we started to see the rise of the consumer welfare standard as courts changed their approach to antitrust in response to economic and legal scholarship revealing that large business size and market share often manifested wealth-creating efficiency, rather than poor economic performance.\nSubsequent judicial decisions enunciated legal standards that seek to preserve incentives for business conduct that benefits consumers. These decisions have also granted dominant firms greater leeway to engage in aggressive competition to better satisfy consumers\nDemocratic and Republican enforcers adopted a bipartisan approach to federal antitrust enforcement that emphasized consumer-welfare promotion\nthe consumer-welfare standard has come under siege. Critics\nThey endorse digital platform regulation, new Federal Trade Commission rulemaking, and legislation to tighten antitrust laws, with a greater emphasis on condemning dominant firm behavior\nwithout regard for consumer welfare. They would also pursue a broader range of objectives, such as promoting fairness, protecting labor rights, and limiting monopoly as measured by firm size and market share\nexpansive antitrust-reform proposals, including possible regulation or structural breakups of big platforms, may be considered\nRecent antitrust-reform hearings\nhave featured condemnations of the consumer-welfare standard\nthese critiques of consumer welfare miss the mark. Abandoning this approach in favor of broad-based interventionist antitrust policies would prove harmful\nProposed reforms such as breaking up dominant firms or prohibiting most mergers\nare likely to make consumers worse off, sacrificing\ncost reductions that result from one firm producing a growing share of output and integrating many complementary services\nConsidering a broader range of conduct to be in violation of antitrust law would likely increase uncertainty for firms as they endeavor to compete to attract additional customers\nhaving to assign weights to ill-defined objectives\nwould create confusion. The resulting decisions could be arbitrary and inconsistent w\nith the rule of law\noft-cited studies claiming that competition is weakening are based on questionable evidence. The 2020 Economic Report\nshowed that those studies rely on overbroad market definitions that tell us nothing about competition in specific markets, let alone across the entire economy\nwhile leading digital platforms often have large market shares, they still face competitive pressure from existing firms and startups to develop innovative new products and services. Indeed, market-leading platforms that fail to innovate can be displaced\nThe antitrust consumer-welfare standard has served consumers well. Competitive forces have yielded a bounty of highly affordable and greatly enhanced digital products and services. The pace of innovation has been breathtaking. The last thing we should do is quickly impose new and amorphous antitrust restrictions that threaten\nsuccess", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Innovation critiques of the CWS are wrong---the plan causes inconsistent application and ignores current rapid pace of innovation.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Although competition policy can be improved, promoting consumer welfare should continue to guide antitrust enforcement in the United States\nCritics claim\nantitrust\nis being neglected as competition weakens\nthat\nfailure to enforce antitrust\nallows unchecked abuses — not just by digital platforms, but by powerful firms in other market segments\nCritics\nattribute this\nto antitrust law’s emphasis on the goal of promoting consumer welfare. They argue\nthe consumer-welfare standard should be ditched\nBefore the 1970s, Supreme Court antitrust decisions generally reflected a “big is bad” philosop\nMany poorly understood business practices were condemned with no inquiry into their actual economic effects. Mergers fared particularly badly in court\nIn the\n70s, we started to see the rise of the consumer welfare standard as courts changed their approach to antitrust in response to economic and legal scholarship revealing that large business size and market share often manifested wealth-creating efficiency, rather than poor economic performance.\nSubsequent judicial decisions enunciated legal standards that seek to preserve incentives for business conduct that benefits consumers. These decisions have also granted dominant firms greater leeway to engage in aggressive competition to better satisfy consumers\nDemocratic and Republican enforcers adopted a bipartisan approach to federal antitrust enforcement that emphasized consumer-welfare promotion\nthe consumer-welfare standard has come under siege. Critics\nThey endorse digital platform regulation, new Federal Trade Commission rulemaking, and legislation to tighten antitrust laws, with a greater emphasis on condemning dominant firm behavior\nwithout regard for consumer welfare. They would also pursue a broader range of objectives, such as promoting fairness, protecting labor rights, and limiting monopoly as measured by firm size and market share\nexpansive antitrust-reform proposals, including possible regulation or structural breakups of big platforms, may be considered\nRecent antitrust-reform hearings\nhave featured condemnations of the consumer-welfare standard\nthese critiques of consumer welfare miss the mark. Abandoning this approach in favor of broad-based interventionist antitrust policies would prove harmful\nProposed reforms such as breaking up dominant firms or prohibiting most mergers\nare likely to make consumers worse off, sacrificing\ncost reductions that result from one firm producing a growing share of output and integrating many complementary services\nConsidering a broader range of conduct to be in violation of antitrust law would likely increase uncertainty for firms as they endeavor to compete to attract additional customers\nhaving to assign weights to ill-defined objectives\nwould create confusion. The resulting decisions could be arbitrary and inconsistent w\nith the rule of law\noft-cited studies claiming that competition is weakening are based on questionable evidence. The 2020 Economic Report\nshowed that those studies rely on overbroad market definitions that tell us nothing about competition in specific markets, let alone across the entire economy\nwhile leading digital platforms often have large market shares, they still face competitive pressure from existing firms and startups to develop innovative new products and services. Indeed, market-leading platforms that fail to innovate can be displaced\nThe antitrust consumer-welfare standard has served consumers well. Competitive forces have yielded a bounty of highly affordable and greatly enhanced digital products and services. The pace of innovation has been breathtaking. The last thing we should do is quickly impose new and amorphous antitrust restrictions that threaten\nsuccess", "role": "user" }, { "content": "competition policy\nconsumer welfare\nguide\nU\nS\nneglected\ncompetition weakens\nunchecked abuses\ndigital platforms\npowerful firms\ngoal\nconsumer welfare\nc\nw\ns\nSupreme Court\nbig is bad\npoorly understood\nconsumer welfare standard\neconomic\nlegal scholarship\nsize\nmarket share\nefficiency\ngranted\ngreater leeway\naggressive competition\nsatisfy consumers\nbipartisan approach\nconsumer-welfare\nregulation\nF\nT\nC\nfairness\nlabor rights\nfirm size\nmarket share\nregulation\nstructural breakups\nconsumer-welfare standard\nmiss the mark\ninterventionist antitrust\nbreaking up\ncost reductions\none firm\ngrowing share\nintegrating\nbroader range\nviolation\nincrease uncertainty\ncompete\nill-defined objectives\nconfusion\narbitrary\ninconsistent\nrule of law\nquestionable evidence\noverbroad market definitions\nnothing\nspecific markets\nentire economy\nlarge market shares\ncompetitive pressure\ninnovative\nproducts\nservices\nc\nw\ns\nCompetitive forces\npace of innovation has been breathtaking\namorphous", "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: Innovation critiques of the CWS are wrong---the plan causes inconsistent application and ignores current rapid pace of innovation.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Although competition policy can be improved, promoting consumer welfare should continue to guide antitrust enforcement in the United States\nCritics claim\nantitrust\nis being neglected as competition weakens\nthat\nfailure to enforce antitrust\nallows unchecked abuses — not just by digital platforms, but by powerful firms in other market segments\nCritics\nattribute this\nto antitrust law’s emphasis on the goal of promoting consumer welfare. They argue\nthe consumer-welfare standard should be ditched\nBefore the 1970s, Supreme Court antitrust decisions generally reflected a “big is bad” philosop\nMany poorly understood business practices were condemned with no inquiry into their actual economic effects. Mergers fared particularly badly in court\nIn the\n70s, we started to see the rise of the consumer welfare standard as courts changed their approach to antitrust in response to economic and legal scholarship revealing that large business size and market share often manifested wealth-creating efficiency, rather than poor economic performance.\nSubsequent judicial decisions enunciated legal standards that seek to preserve incentives for business conduct that benefits consumers. These decisions have also granted dominant firms greater leeway to engage in aggressive competition to better satisfy consumers\nDemocratic and Republican enforcers adopted a bipartisan approach to federal antitrust enforcement that emphasized consumer-welfare promotion\nthe consumer-welfare standard has come under siege. Critics\nThey endorse digital platform regulation, new Federal Trade Commission rulemaking, and legislation to tighten antitrust laws, with a greater emphasis on condemning dominant firm behavior\nwithout regard for consumer welfare. They would also pursue a broader range of objectives, such as promoting fairness, protecting labor rights, and limiting monopoly as measured by firm size and market share\nexpansive antitrust-reform proposals, including possible regulation or structural breakups of big platforms, may be considered\nRecent antitrust-reform hearings\nhave featured condemnations of the consumer-welfare standard\nthese critiques of consumer welfare miss the mark. Abandoning this approach in favor of broad-based interventionist antitrust policies would prove harmful\nProposed reforms such as breaking up dominant firms or prohibiting most mergers\nare likely to make consumers worse off, sacrificing\ncost reductions that result from one firm producing a growing share of output and integrating many complementary services\nConsidering a broader range of conduct to be in violation of antitrust law would likely increase uncertainty for firms as they endeavor to compete to attract additional customers\nhaving to assign weights to ill-defined objectives\nwould create confusion. The resulting decisions could be arbitrary and inconsistent w\nith the rule of law\noft-cited studies claiming that competition is weakening are based on questionable evidence. The 2020 Economic Report\nshowed that those studies rely on overbroad market definitions that tell us nothing about competition in specific markets, let alone across the entire economy\nwhile leading digital platforms often have large market shares, they still face competitive pressure from existing firms and startups to develop innovative new products and services. Indeed, market-leading platforms that fail to innovate can be displaced\nThe antitrust consumer-welfare standard has served consumers well. Competitive forces have yielded a bounty of highly affordable and greatly enhanced digital products and services. The pace of innovation has been breathtaking. The last thing we should do is quickly impose new and amorphous antitrust restrictions that threaten\nsuccess", "role": "user" }, { "content": "consumer welfare\nCritics\nargue\nthe\nstandard should be ditched\nBefore the\n70s\nbig is bad\npoorly understood\neconomic effects\nwe\nsee the\nc\nw\ns\nin response to economic and legal scholarship revealing\nsize and\nshare\nmanifest\nefficiency\nin\na bipartisan approach\nCritics\nendorse\nregulation, new\nrulemaking, and legislation\nThey would\npursue\nbroader\nobjectives\ncritiques\nfavor\ninterventionist antitrust\nsacrificing\ncost reductions that result from one firm producing\ngrowing share\nand integrating\nservices\nConsidering\nbroader range\nin violation of\nlaw would\nincrease uncertainty\ncreate confusion\ndecisions could be arbitrary and inconsistent\nlarge market shares\nstill face\npressure\nto develop innovative\nproducts and services\nThe\nc\nw\ns\npace of innovation has been breathtaking. The last thing we should do is quickly impose\namorphous\nrestrictions", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Plan makes it easier to do their work.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "\nEven where international cartel activity can be tackled effectively by national competition laws, inefficiencies may occur with regard to the investigation of international cartels and lead to under-enforcement of competition policy and laws. In the absence of well-functioning and institutionalized cooperation mechanisms, multiple jurisdictions may repeat the same investigative steps, resulting in extra costs for businesses subject to investigations. More importantly, competition authorities will suffer from the unnecessary duplication of efforts; and might in practice be unable to obtain necessary evidence from other jurisdictions.278 As a result, harmful cartel activity could go unpunished, additional costs could be imposed on the global economy, and consumers would be harmed.\n", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Even where international cartel activity can be tackled effectively\ninefficiencies may occur with regard to the investigation of international cartels and lead to under-enforcement of competition policy\nIn the absence of well-functioning and institutionalized cooperation mechanisms, multiple jurisdictions may repeat the same investigative steps, resulting in extra costs for businesses subject to investigations\ncompetition authorities will suffer from the unnecessary duplication of efforts; and might in practice be unable to obtain necessary evidence from other jurisdictions\nharmful cartel activity could go unpunished, additional costs could be imposed on the global economy, and consumers would be harmed", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Plan makes it easier to do their work.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Even where international cartel activity can be tackled effectively\ninefficiencies may occur with regard to the investigation of international cartels and lead to under-enforcement of competition policy\nIn the absence of well-functioning and institutionalized cooperation mechanisms, multiple jurisdictions may repeat the same investigative steps, resulting in extra costs for businesses subject to investigations\ncompetition authorities will suffer from the unnecessary duplication of efforts; and might in practice be unable to obtain necessary evidence from other jurisdictions\nharmful cartel activity could go unpunished, additional costs could be imposed on the global economy, and consumers would be harmed", "role": "user" }, { "content": "tackled effectively\ninvestigation of international cartels\nlead to under-enforcement\nwell-functioning\ninstitutionalized cooperation mechanisms\nmultiple jurisdictions may repeat the same investigative steps\nextra costs\ncompetition authorities\nev\nharmful cartel activity could go unpunished\nadditional costs could be imposed\nglobal economy\nconsumers would be harmed", "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: Plan makes it easier to do their work.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Even where international cartel activity can be tackled effectively\ninefficiencies may occur with regard to the investigation of international cartels and lead to under-enforcement of competition policy\nIn the absence of well-functioning and institutionalized cooperation mechanisms, multiple jurisdictions may repeat the same investigative steps, resulting in extra costs for businesses subject to investigations\ncompetition authorities will suffer from the unnecessary duplication of efforts; and might in practice be unable to obtain necessary evidence from other jurisdictions\nharmful cartel activity could go unpunished, additional costs could be imposed on the global economy, and consumers would be harmed", "role": "user" }, { "content": "inefficiencies\noccur with regard to\ninvestigation\ninternational cartels and lead to under-enforcement\nIn the absence of\ninstitutionalized cooperation mechanisms\nmultiple jurisdictions\nrepeat the same\nsteps\nresulting in extra costs for\ncompetition authorities\nmight\nbe unable to obtain necessary ev", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The counterplan confers guardianship upon animals, this does not mean animals are persons it just means animals can have legal Gaurdians. This is historically supported.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Boulder, Colo., made history in 2000 when the city added \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership. It was the first instance of a city referring to the legal relationship between a person and a pet as something other than owner and property.\nThe city council reasoned that Boulderites who internalize the idea they are pet guardians and not just property owners may be more inclined to treat animals humanely and be responsible pet owners.\nAs explained by In Defense of Animals, the San Rafael, Calif.-based animal protection organization behind the national guardian campaign, a pet guardian doesn't buy a pet but adopts a homeless animal instead. She provides the pet with veterinary care, doesn't let it run loose, and trains the animal not to be aggressive. Such are the potential benefits of identifying the owner-pet relationship as guardianship, according to the IDA.\nThe campaign started tallying successes around the country, most notably in Rhode Island, where in 2001 the legislature added \"guardian\" to the state animal ownership statutes. Today, pet-owners in 17 cities, one state, and two counties in California can legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship was, and is still today, thought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals, for better or for worse.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Boulder, Colo., made history in 2000 when the city added \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership\nreferring to the legal relationship between a person and a pet\nAs explained by In Defense of Animals\nThe campaign started tallying successes around the country,\npet-owners in 17 cities, one state, and two counties in California can legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship\nthought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals", "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 counterplan confers guardianship upon animals, this does not mean animals are persons it just means animals can have legal Gaurdians. This is historically supported.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Boulder, Colo., made history in 2000 when the city added \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership. It was the first instance of a city referring to the legal relationship between a person and a pet as something other than owner and property.\nThe city council reasoned that Boulderites who internalize the idea they are pet guardians and not just property owners may be more inclined to treat animals humanely and be responsible pet owners.\nAs explained by In Defense of Animals, the San Rafael, Calif.-based animal protection organization behind the national guardian campaign, a pet guardian doesn't buy a pet but adopts a homeless animal instead. She provides the pet with veterinary care, doesn't let it run loose, and trains the animal not to be aggressive. Such are the potential benefits of identifying the owner-pet relationship as guardianship, according to the IDA.\nThe campaign started tallying successes around the country, most notably in Rhode Island, where in 2001 the legislature added \"guardian\" to the state animal ownership statutes. Today, pet-owners in 17 cities, one state, and two counties in California can legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship was, and is still today, thought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals, for better or for worse.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "added \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership\nsuccesses around the country,\ncan legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship\nthought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals", "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 counterplan confers guardianship upon animals, this does not mean animals are persons it just means animals can have legal Gaurdians. This is historically supported.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Boulder, Colo., made history in 2000 when the city added \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership\nreferring to the legal relationship between a person and a pet\nAs explained by In Defense of Animals\nThe campaign started tallying successes around the country,\npet-owners in 17 cities, one state, and two counties in California can legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship\nthought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Boulder\nadded \"guardian\" to the section of its municipal code addressing animal ownership\nThe campaign started tallying successes around the country\nowners in 17 cities,\ncan legally refer to themselves as animal guardians.\nPet guardianship\nthought of as a force to potentially redefine society's relationship with companion animals", "role": "assistant" } ]