Skip to content

Files

Latest commit

3d6f3d9 · Aug 12, 2022

History

History
284 lines (284 loc) · 138 KB

TaskB_test.csv

File metadata and controls

284 lines (284 loc) · 138 KB
1
topicPremiseConclusion 1Conclusion 2ValidityVotes_Concl1IsMoreValidVotes_ValidTieVotes_Concl2IsMoreValidNoveltyVotes_Concl1IsMoreNovelVotes_NovelTieVotes_Concl2IsMoreNovelTopic-in-dev-split
2
VealThe American Veal Association, for instance, passed a resolution in 2008 that calls for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual stalls. Such a phasing out could occur in other places, if we conclude that they are bad, with the result that the veal industry is simply modified to be more cruel.Veal hutches are a form of genetically modified meatThe veal industry should phase-out individual stalls.10120030no
3
VealAnother selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.Veal is quick to cook, appealing to new generationsVeal is quick to cook, appealing to new generations.00300030no
4
VealAnother selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.Veal is a modern, fast-cooking optionVeal appeals to young, fast-cooking01200120no
5
VealAnother selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.Veal is quick and easy to prepare.Veal is easy to cook and enjoy-12100111no
6
VealAnother selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.Veal can be prepared in minutes, rather than hoursVeal is a modern, fast-cooking option00300030no
7
VealAnother selling point is that it's fast to cook, said Gill Smith of Waitrose, the only supermarket that continued to sell British veal for 20 years: 'A thin-cut fillet can go from pan to plate in minutes, so it appeals to a new generation of foodies who are time-poor.Veal can be prepared in minutes, rather than hoursVeal appeals to young, fast-cooking0021-1210no
8
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Veal meat production requires a huge amount of land.Veal production requires too much land and food.10031012no
9
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Veal production has a high carbon footprint.Animal food is very expensive01110111no
10
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Veal production requires too much land to feed millions of cowsThe production of meat and dairy products is costly-12101012no
11
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!The production of veal is very expensive.Animal food is very expensive-12100111no
12
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!The production of veal is very expensive.Veal production has a high carbon footprint.01110111no
13
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!The production of meat and dairy products is costlyVeal production requires too much land to feed millions of cows1003-1201no
14
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Cattle and meat production requires too much land.Veal production is inefficient.-12011003no
15
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Veal meat production is based on animal crueltyVeal production requires too much land and food.10121012no
16
VealThe American Veal Association, for instance, passed a resolution in 2008 that calls for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual stalls. Such a phasing out could occur in other places, if we conclude that they are bad, with the result that the veal industry is simply modified to be more cruel.The veal industry should phase-out individual stalls.The veal industry is not alone in its cruelty.01200021no
17
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Animal meat production is a major contributor to global warmingThe production of meat and dairy products is costly10031102no
18
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Animals are consuming too much food.Animal food is very expensive-1300-1201no
19
VealThe American Veal Association, for instance, passed a resolution in 2008 that calls for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual stalls. Such a phasing out could occur in other places, if we conclude that they are bad, with the result that the veal industry is simply modified to be more cruel.The veal industry should phase-out individual stalls.Veal hutches are a form of genetically modified meat-13000030no
20
VealThe American Veal Association, for instance, passed a resolution in 2008 that calls for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual stalls. Such a phasing out could occur in other places, if we conclude that they are bad, with the result that the veal industry is simply modified to be more cruel.The veal industry is not alone in its cruelty.The veal industry should phase-out individual stalls.10120120no
21
VealThe American Veal Association, for instance, passed a resolution in 2008 that calls for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual stalls. Such a phasing out could occur in other places, if we conclude that they are bad, with the result that the veal industry is simply modified to be more cruel.Veal stalls can be phasing out.Veal phasing-out stalls could be cruel to the veal industry00210030no
22
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Unwanted calves are more cost-effective than wasting meatUnwanted calves can be used to make veal00210120no
23
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Unwanted calves are more cost-effective than wasting meatVeal is more economical than wasting good meat-12100120no
24
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Using unwanted calves for veal is more efficient than wasting itUnwanted calves can be used more efficiently than thrown away.00211012no
25
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Veal is more economical than wasting good meatUnwanted calves can be used to make veal10120030no
26
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Unwanted calves can be used for vealUnwanted calves can be used more efficiently than thrown away.00301012no
27
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Veal is a better economic and social investment.Using unwanted calves for veal is more economical than just wasting it.10030021no
28
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Animals are subjected to high calorie consumptionAnimals consume a great deal of food and land.1003-1201no
29
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Animals are subjected to high calorie consumptionAnimal food costs.0111-1210no
30
VealIn addition to the unnecessary cruelty that millions of cows, calves and cattle must face, there are other factors involved in meat/dairy production to consider. Most of the world’s agricultural land (4/5ths) is used to grow food for farm animals. A cow has to eat 10lbs of grain for every 1lb of beef produced. The world’s cattle consume an amount of food equal to the calorie needs of double the population of the planet!Animals consume more food than humansVeal production is inefficient.10031003no
31
VealEconomically speaking, using unwanted calves for veal is a more efficient and socially desirable result than simply wasting this good and valuable meat.Using unwanted calves for veal is more efficient than wasting itUnwanted calves can be used for veal01110030no
32
VegetarianismAlmost all dangerous types of food-poisoning (e.g. E-coli, salmonella) are passed on through meat or eggs. Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Hunters eating apes and monkeys is thought to have brought HIV/AIDS to humans. And using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.Vegetarianism increases the risk of communicable diseasesVegetarianism is prone to disease.00210120yes
33
VegetarianismAlmost all dangerous types of food-poisoning (e.g. E-coli, salmonella) are passed on through meat or eggs. Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Hunters eating apes and monkeys is thought to have brought HIV/AIDS to humans. And using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.Animals can transmit disease to humansVegetarians often pass diseases to humans-1300-1201yes
34
VegetarianismAlmost all dangerous types of food-poisoning (e.g. E-coli, salmonella) are passed on through meat or eggs. Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Hunters eating apes and monkeys is thought to have brought HIV/AIDS to humans. And using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.Vegetarians are also at risk of food poisoningVegetarianism is prone to disease.01200021yes
35
VegetarianismAlmost all dangerous types of food-poisoning (e.g. E-coli, salmonella) are passed on through meat or eggs. Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Hunters eating apes and monkeys is thought to have brought HIV/AIDS to humans. And using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.Vegetarians often pass diseases to humansAnimals can transmit disease to humans10031102yes
36
VegetarianismThe notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating."Dominion" is a label for human abuse of animals"Dominion" does not require an abandonment of meat-eating1003-1300yes
37
VegetarianismThe notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating."Dominion" does not require an abandonment of meat-eating"Dominion" is a label for human abuse of animals-12101003yes
38
VegetarianismThe notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating.Humans are good stewards of animals; not vegetariansMan's dominion over animals does not justify animal abuse10031102yes
39
VegetarianismThe notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating."Dominion" is not a blank check for man's exploit of animals"Dominion" is a label for human abuse of animals-12101012yes
40
Video gamesFor example, completing a hard video game or a hard level makes you feel a great sense of accomplishment. Since many people play video games, it has taken the role that sports did at one time. Those who are accomplished in playing are looked up to by their friends and social circle.Many people feel good after completing a video game.Video games help people feel accomplished.01200021no
41
Video gamesFor example, completing a hard video game or a hard level makes you feel a great sense of accomplishment. Since many people play video games, it has taken the role that sports did at one time. Those who are accomplished in playing are looked up to by their friends and social circle.Video games give people a sense of accomplishment.Successfully completing a video game makes you feel accomplished.00210030no
42
Video gamesFor example, completing a hard video game or a hard level makes you feel a great sense of accomplishment. Since many people play video games, it has taken the role that sports did at one time. Those who are accomplished in playing are looked up to by their friends and social circle.Video games help people feel accomplished.Many people feel good after completing a video game.00210030no
43
Video surveillanceVideo surveillance is no different than a police officer watching over the street. Who doesn't want extra police officers watching over streets with high crime? Surveillance tapes do not invade any privacy; they are only there to protect the public.Surveillance tapes do not invade privacy.Surveillance tapes do not invade privacy00300030yes
44
Video surveillanceIt is certainly not the case that people monitor all security cameras closely 24/7. Most surveillance tapes are rarely seen. Usually surveillance cameras are only viewed if they have filmed a crime and are viewed only to catch criminals, not to invade people's privacy or stalk people.Most surveillance cameras are rarely viewedPrivacy infringements are rare with surveillance cameras01111003yes
45
Video surveillanceVideo surveillance is no different than a police officer watching over the street. Who doesn't want extra police officers watching over streets with high crime? Surveillance tapes do not invade any privacy; they are only there to protect the public.Surveillance tapes do not invade privacy.Video surveillance is like a police officer.10121102yes
46
War on DrugsThe United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely because they are illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems.War on Drugs worsens instability in South AmericaWar on Drugs has contributed to instability-12100021yes
47
War on DrugsIt has been suggested that ending prohibition could reduce the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands. Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving under the influence of alcohol than by drivers under the influence of marijuana,[70] and research which suggests that alcohol is more harmful than all but the most ""dangerous"" drugs. When the level of harm associated with the other drugs includes harm that arises solely as a result of the drugs illegality rather than merely that danger which is associated with actually using the drugs, only heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone were shown to be more harmful than the legal drug alcohol).Ending drug use would reduce useEnding prohibition would reduce use of hard drugs10030111yes
48
War on DrugsIt has been suggested that ending prohibition could reduce the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands. Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving under the influence of alcohol than by drivers under the influence of marijuana,[70] and research which suggests that alcohol is more harmful than all but the most ""dangerous"" drugs. When the level of harm associated with the other drugs includes harm that arises solely as a result of the drugs illegality rather than merely that danger which is associated with actually using the drugs, only heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone were shown to be more harmful than the legal drug alcohol).Ending drug prohibition would reduce use.Ending drug use would reduce use-12010120yes
49
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drug-related crimes go hand in handDrug-use and crime go hand-in-hand10030120yes
50
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drug-related crimes go hand in handCrime/violence increase with drug use10031003yes
51
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drugs and crime go hand in handDrugs are responsible for many homicides01201003yes
52
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drug-use and crime go hand-in-handDrug-related crimes go hand in hand-13000021yes
53
War on DrugsMilitary helicopters continue to scythe over treetops in the Colombian jungle and hundreds of millions of dollars are still poured into the fight – but there is a growing conviction that it cannot be won. [...] It may evolve and change shape, move from jungles to cities and from bloody battles to discreet bribes, but it will not end with a flag planted in the ground and victory declared.War on Drugs cannot be wonDrug war is not easily won; no "win"-12100021yes
54
War on DrugsIt has been suggested that ending prohibition could reduce the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands. Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving under the influence of alcohol than by drivers under the influence of marijuana,[70] and research which suggests that alcohol is more harmful than all but the most ""dangerous"" drugs. When the level of harm associated with the other drugs includes harm that arises solely as a result of the drugs illegality rather than merely that danger which is associated with actually using the drugs, only heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and street methadone were shown to be more harmful than the legal drug alcohol).Ending drug use would reduce useEnding drug prohibition would reduce use.10030021yes
55
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drugs and drug-use increase crimeDrugs and drug-consumption are often linked to crimes00210021yes
56
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drugs and drug-consumption are often linked to crimesDrugs and drug-use increase crime01200120yes
57
War on DrugsThe US Drug Enforcement Administration claims: "Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.— US Drug Enforcement Administration (2003). "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization" DUF research indicates that: Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career. Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime. Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood. Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.Drugs and crime go hand-in-hand.Drugs and drug-consumption go hand-in-hand-13000021yes
58
War on DrugsBetween 1983 and 1998, annual drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased approximately 16-fold to about 170,000. Mike Gravel. 2006 - "The United States incarcerates more people and at a higher rate than any other peacetime nation in the world. According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics the number of US residents behind bars has now reached more than 2.3 million. We are losing an entire generation of young men and women to our prisons. Our nation's ineffective and wasteful 'war on drugs' plays a major role in this.War on drugs has increased incarceration ratesUS incarcerates more people than any other nation-1300-1201yes
59
Warrantless wiretapping in the United StatesSays broad claim of presidential power contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That law intended for the government to seek warrants from a special FISA court before conducting such surveillance.Unauthorized wiretapping violates separation of powersWarrantless wiretap violates the will of Congress1012-1300yes
60
Warrantless wiretapping in the United StatesSays broad claim of presidential power contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. That law intended for the government to seek warrants from a special FISA court before conducting such surveillance.President's power contradicts the will of Congress.Warrantless wire-tapping contradicts the will of Congress01110021yes
61
Warrantless wiretapping in the United States,"the President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these plaintiffs as well.", the plaintiffs maintained that the NSA's surveillance impeded "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy" and that this was a violation of their right to privacy.Surveillance impedes plaintiffs' First Amendment rightsThe NSA's surveillance impeded the plaintiffs' rights10121012yes
62
Warrantless wiretapping in the United States,"the President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these plaintiffs as well.", the plaintiffs maintained that the NSA's surveillance impeded "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy" and that this was a violation of their right to privacy.NSA surveillance violates first amendment rights of plaintiffsPresident Bush violated the Fourth Amendment01111012yes
63
Warrantless wiretapping in the United States,"the President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these plaintiffs as well.", the plaintiffs maintained that the NSA's surveillance impeded "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy" and that this was a violation of their right to privacy.Warrantless wiretaps violated the first amendmentWarrantless wiretapping violates the Fourth Amendment00210120yes
64
Warrantless wiretapping in the United States,"the President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these plaintiffs as well.", the plaintiffs maintained that the NSA's surveillance impeded "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy" and that this was a violation of their right to privacy.President Bush violated the Fourth AmendmentThe NSA's surveillance impeded the plaintiffs' rights1012-1210yes
65
Warrantless wiretapping in the United States,"the President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these plaintiffs as well.", the plaintiffs maintained that the NSA's surveillance impeded "the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy" and that this was a violation of their right to privacy.President Bush violated the Fourth AmendmentNSA surveillance violates first amendment rights of plaintiffs01110120yes
66
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq is no justification for war on terrorIraq's war on terrorism was not a just war10120021no
67
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was just an occupation, not terrorismWar in Iraq was unjustified by "terrorism"0021-1201no
68
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.Terrorism is no justification for war in IraqWar in Iraq was justification for fighting terrorism-13001102no
69
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.Terrorism is no justification for war in IraqThe "war" in Iraq was merely an unjust occupation/war.-1300-1201no
70
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was not a front in the war on terrorWar in Iraq is just a "war"00300120no
71
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was not justifiable to end a war on terrorismWar in Iraq was justification for fighting terrorism-12101102no
72
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.The war on terror was unjustified by the "occupation" of IraqWar in Iraq was unjustified by "terrorism"-1201-1210no
73
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.The war on terror was unjustified by the "occupation" of IraqThe war in Iraq was not a just response to the "War on Terror"-12100120no
74
Was the War in Iraq worth it?While it may be true that the War in Iraq irritated many, it is probably better to be feared than loved, as Machiavelli argued.The War in Iraq is more remembered than wonIt is better to be feared than loved in Iraq.11020111no
75
Was the War in Iraq worth it?While it may be true that the War in Iraq irritated many, it is probably better to be feared than loved, as Machiavelli argued.War in Iraq is better feared than loved.Fear of war in Iraq is justified, not love-12100120no
76
Was the War in Iraq worth it?While it may be true that the War in Iraq irritated many, it is probably better to be feared than loved, as Machiavelli argued.The Iraq War irritated many, but it is better to be feared than lovedThe War in Iraq is better feared than enjoyed-12100120no
77
Was the War in Iraq worth it?While it may be true that the War in Iraq irritated many, it is probably better to be feared than loved, as Machiavelli argued.It is better to be feared than loved in Iraq.The War in Iraq is more remembered than won-12010111no
78
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was about fighting terrorism, not warWar on Terror is not a justification for waging war.10030111no
79
Was the War in Iraq worth it?While it may be true that the War in Iraq irritated many, it is probably better to be feared than loved, as Machiavelli argued.The War in Iraq is better feared than enjoyedThe Iraq War irritated many, but it is better to be feared than loved10120021no
80
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.Iraq's "war" against terrorism was an unjust warIraq's war on terrorism was not a just war01110030no
81
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.The war in Iraq was not a just response to the "War on Terror"War in Iraq was unjustified by "terrorism"10120111no
82
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was unjustly fought to counter terrorism.War in Iraq is just a "war"-1210-1210no
83
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.The "War on Terror" in Iraq was a result of an unjust occupation.Iraq's war on terrorism was not a just war01110120no
84
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.The "War on Terror" in Iraq was a result of an unjust occupation.Iraq's "war" against terrorism was an unjust war-12100120no
85
Was the War in Iraq worth it?War in Iraq might have become, on a very small level, a front in the War on Terror, but this was as much a result of the act of waging such an unjust war and "occupation" as anything else - many locals were incited to fight the occupation and were subsequently labelled "terrorists." Fighting the terrorism that resulted from the war is clearly not a justification for waging the war in the first place; it nets no benefits.War in Iraq was about fighting terrorism, not warWar in Iraq was about fighting terrorism; no good10120111no
86
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Public-private partnership improves employee wages and benefitsWater privatization has improved employee wages and benefits00210030no
87
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has lowered employee costs.Public-private partnerships have improved employee wages1003-1201no
88
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee satisfactionWater privatization has improved employee benefits01110120no
89
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Public-private water privatization benefits employees better.Public-private partnerships have improved employee wages01200030no
90
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee wages and benefitsPublic-private partnership on water has shown to be more profitable-13001102no
91
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Public-private partnership on water has shown to be more profitableWater privatization has improved employee wages and benefits1003-1201no
92
Water privatization(PPPs) in the 1990s. Braadbaart, O. (2005). Privatizing water and wastewater in developing countries : assessing the 1990s' experiments. Water policy ; vol. 7, no. 4 ; p. 329-344. Abstract and ordering details -Water privatization has succeeded in developed countries.Water privatization has failed00300030no
93
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee wages and benefitsPublic-private partnership improves employee wages and benefits00210030no
94
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee wagesWater privatization has improved performance-12100021no
95
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee wagesWater privatization improves employee wages and benefits10120030no
96
Water privatization(PPPs) in the 1990s. Braadbaart, O. (2005). Privatizing water and wastewater in developing countries : assessing the 1990s' experiments. Water policy ; vol. 7, no. 4 ; p. 329-344. Abstract and ordering details -Public-private partnership (PPP) in the 1990sPublic-private partnerships in the 1990s00300030no
97
Water privatization(PPPs) in the 1990s. Braadbaart, O. (2005). Privatizing water and wastewater in developing countries : assessing the 1990s' experiments. Water policy ; vol. 7, no. 4 ; p. 329-344. Abstract and ordering details -Public-private partnerships often lead to water privatizationWater privatization in developing countries is a success01200120no
98
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Public-private partnership improves performancePublic-private partnership on water has shown to be more profitable-13001102no
99
Water privatization(PPPs) in the 1990s. Braadbaart, O. (2005). Privatizing water and wastewater in developing countries : assessing the 1990s' experiments. Water policy ; vol. 7, no. 4 ; p. 329-344. Abstract and ordering details -Water privatization in developing countries is a successPublic-private partnerships often lead to water privatization00210021no
100
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Water privatization has improved employee wages and benefitsPublic-private partnerships are better for employees-12100021no
101
Water privatizationWater privatization often leads to price-hikes two or three times higher than the price under public water-utility ownership. This might be the case despite the fact that a for-profit water company is operating more efficiently than a governmen-owned company. The problem is, however, that the for-profit company is pocketing PROFITS off the top of what it is charging the public, whereas a government-owned company would not be pocketing these profits. Therefore, we have to ask, what does "economic efficiency" mean? The reality is that for-Water privatization is not efficient.Water privatization can lead to higher water prices.10120120no
102
Water privatizationA 1999 report by the city of Indianapolis on the performance of the public-private partnership in running the city's water system for five years said that employee wages and benefits have risen between 9 and 28 percent, accident rates have dropped 91%, and grievances are down 99%Public-private water privatization has improved employee wagesWater privatization has improved employee benefits-12100021no
103
Water privatizationWater privatization often leads to price-hikes two or three times higher than the price under public water-utility ownership. This might be the case despite the fact that a for-profit water company is operating more efficiently than a governmen-owned company. The problem is, however, that the for-profit company is pocketing PROFITS off the top of what it is charging the public, whereas a government-owned company would not be pocketing these profits. Therefore, we have to ask, what does "economic efficiency" mean? The reality is that for-Private companies often have higher prices than public water.Privatized water companies often have higher prices-12100030no
104
Water privatizationWater privatization often leads to price-hikes two or three times higher than the price under public water-utility ownership. This might be the case despite the fact that a for-profit water company is operating more efficiently than a governmen-owned company. The problem is, however, that the for-profit company is pocketing PROFITS off the top of what it is charging the public, whereas a government-owned company would not be pocketing these profits. Therefore, we have to ask, what does "economic efficiency" mean? The reality is that for-Water privatization often costs more than public water.Water privatization often results in higher prices00210021no
105
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is fundamental to life; must be protectedWater is essential to the right to life.0021-1210no
106
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is fundamental to life; must be protectedWater is essential to the right to life and freedom of speech.-12010120no
107
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is fundamental to life; must be protectedWater is a fundamental right to life.-13000021no
108
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asThe right to water is the most fundamental of human rightsWater is fundamental to life.1012-1201no
109
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is essential to the right to life.Water is essential to the right to life and freedom of speech.01110030no
110
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is a fundamental part of the right to life.Water is fundamental to life.01110120no
111
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is a basic human rightWater is a fundamental human right0030-1210no
112
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is fundamental to life.Water is a fundamental part of the right to life.10120021no
113
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is a fundamental part of human right to life.Water is a fundamental human right-12101012no
114
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is a fundamental human right.Privatizing water violates the right to life.-12011012no
115
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is fundamental to human rights.Water is essential to human rights.01200021no
116
Water privatizationWater privatization often leads to price-hikes two or three times higher than the price under public water-utility ownership. This might be the case despite the fact that a for-profit water company is operating more efficiently than a governmen-owned company. The problem is, however, that the for-profit company is pocketing PROFITS off the top of what it is charging the public, whereas a government-owned company would not be pocketing these profits. Therefore, we have to ask, what does "economic efficiency" mean? The reality is that for-Private companies often have higher prices than public water.Privatized water companies often have higher prices01200030no
117
Water privatizationWater privatization often leads to price-hikes two or three times higher than the price under public water-utility ownership. This might be the case despite the fact that a for-profit water company is operating more efficiently than a governmen-owned company. The problem is, however, that the for-profit company is pocketing PROFITS off the top of what it is charging the public, whereas a government-owned company would not be pocketing these profits. Therefore, we have to ask, what does "economic efficiency" mean? The reality is that for-Water privatization often leads to higher prices.Water privatization often results in higher prices00300021no
118
Water privatizationThis argument centers on the notion that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and that water is fundamental to health and life, making it necessary to preserve water as a right in order to protect the right to life. By extension, it can be argued that water is essential to all of the rights that depend on health and life, such as the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. This all makes water an exceptional, fundamental part of protecting our rights as individuals. In this way, water can actually be seen as a "negative" right asWater is a fundamental human rightWater is a fundamental part of human right to life.1012-1210no
119
Wave powerIt is difficult to transfer energy back to land."It is difficult to transfer energy back to landWaves are difficult to transfer energy back to land-12010021yes
120
Wave powerIt is difficult to transfer energy back to land."Difficult to transfer energy back to land"Difficult to transfer energy from land.-12100021yes
121
Wave powerIt is difficult to transfer energy back to land."Difficult to transfer energy from land."Difficult to transfer energy back to land10120120yes
122
Wave powerIt is difficult to transfer energy back to land."It is difficult to transfer energy from land"."It is difficult to transfer energy back to land10030120yes
123
Wave powerIt is difficult to transfer energy back to land."It is difficult to transfer energy back to land"Difficult to transfer energy back to land01200030yes
124
Wave powerThere are many regulations surrounding the permits given to coastline projects. Wave energy projects risk running up against these regulations.Regulations for wave energy run-up against regulations.Regulations for wave energy are strict10120021yes
125
Wave powerThe most important contemporary environmental concern is that an energy source emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Wave energy addresses this concern, emitting not greenhouse gases in the process of generating electricity.Wave power emits no greenhouse gasesWave energy emits no greenhouse gases00300030yes
126
Wave powerWave power has the potential to provide 5-10% of US energy supply, according to the New York Times.Wave power has the potential to replace coal.Wave power can be a viable source of energy10121012yes
127
Wave powerThe most important contemporary environmental concern is that an energy source emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Wave energy addresses this concern, emitting not greenhouse gases in the process of generating electricity.Wave energy emits no greenhouse gasesWave energy emits no greenhouse gases.00300030yes
128
Wave powerThe most important contemporary environmental concern is that an energy source emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Wave energy addresses this concern, emitting not greenhouse gases in the process of generating electricity.Wave energy emits no greenhouse gasesWave power emits no greenhouse gases00300030yes
129
Wave powerThe most important contemporary environmental concern is that an energy source emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Wave energy addresses this concern, emitting not greenhouse gases in the process of generating electricity.Wave energy emits no greenhouse gases.Wave energy emits no greenhouse gases00300030yes
130
Wave powerThe most important contemporary environmental concern is that an energy source emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Wave energy addresses this concern, emitting not greenhouse gases in the process of generating electricity.Wave energy emits no greenhouse gasesWave energy emits no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere00210021yes
131
Wave powerWave power has the potential to provide 5-10% of US energy supply, according to the New York Times.Wave power can be a viable source of energyWave power has the potential to replace coal.-1210-1210yes
132
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal.Wind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike coal plants10030030yes
133
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal.Wind farms can be built piecemeal00300030yes
134
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal, reducing costsWind farms can be piecemeal, unlike other renewables.-13001102yes
135
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal, reducing costsWind farms can be piecemeal, like coal plants-1210-1201yes
136
Wind energyNatural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for better cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for better use.11021003yes
137
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal.Wind farms can be built piecemeal, reducing costs11021003yes
138
Wind energyNatural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for better cars.-12100021yes
139
Wind energyNatural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for cars.Wind energy frees up natural gas for better use.-12101003yes
140
Wind energyNatural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.Wind energy can help free-up natural gas for cars.Wind energy can be better used in cars-13001012yes
141
Wind energywind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike most power stations. A half-finished coal-fired or nuclear power plant is a useless waste of money, but a half-finished wind farm is simply a wind farm half the size originally intended—and one that has been providing revenue since the first turbine was completed.Wind farms can be built piecemeal, unlike coal plantsWind farms can be built piecemeal.-13000030yes
142
Wind energyUnlike many other forms of energy generation, wind generators do not require the cycling of water for cooling or as the medium for transferring heat energy into usable electric energy (such as with coal or gas).Wind turbines do not require the cooling of waterWind energy does not require water cooling.01110111yes
143
Wind energyUnlike many other forms of energy generation, wind generators do not require the cycling of water for cooling or as the medium for transferring heat energy into usable electric energy (such as with coal or gas).Wind energy requires no heating/cooling.Wind energy does not require cycling of water.01110120yes
144
Withdrawing from IraqWhen Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, it provided the president with the authorization to go to war in Iraq. This authorization provided the president with the authority to prosecute the War in Iraq to its conclusion, and it continues to offer this authorization.The Iraq War has been authorized by the Bush AdministrationCongress gave the president the authorization to enter Iraq1102-1300no
145
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.The settlement of Iraq is not a success.The emergence of an Iraqi government requires the support of the US10031102no
146
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.The settlement of Iraq is not a success.Withdrawing from Iraq is a step toward political progress00211012no
147
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.Iraqi Sunni Arabs must be convinced that a legitimate government exists.Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the Iraqi government is legitimate10121012no
148
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.The emergence of an Iraqi government requires the support of the USThe settlement of Iraq is not a success.-1300-1201no
149
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.The success of the Iraqi government requires the US's support.Political progress in Iraq is encouraging-13001102no
150
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)An increasing number of US troops are seeking to withdraw from Iraq.An anti-war movement has emerged in Iraq, calling for withdrawal00300120no
151
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.Sunni Iraqis want to see a government, but it has to be builtSunni Arabs have to be convinced that the Iraqi government is legitimate10031102no
152
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.Iraq's new government requires US supportPolitical progress in Iraq is encouraging-13001102no
153
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.Iraq's new constitution requires US supportThe creation of a legitimate government in Iraq requires US support00210111no
154
Withdrawing from IraqCritics of a withdrawal often argue that it would embolden terrorists. While this may be true, this completely ignores the fact that the war itself emboldened terrorists more than anything else. It continues to embolden them with a cause. While withdrawing may be a "success" for terrorists, and embolden them in this way, it will take away their cause of "expelling the crusader", which is the foundation of their support across the Muslim world.Withdrawing from Iraq would embolden terrorists and their cause.Withdrawing from Iraq would not embolden terrorists01200030no
155
Withdrawing from IraqCritics of a withdrawal often argue that it would embolden terrorists. While this may be true, this completely ignores the fact that the war itself emboldened terrorists more than anything else. It continues to embolden them with a cause. While withdrawing may be a "success" for terrorists, and embolden them in this way, it will take away their cause of "expelling the crusader", which is the foundation of their support across the Muslim world.Withdrawing from Iraq would embolden terrorists.Withdrawing from Iraq will not embolden terrorists-12100021no
156
Withdrawing from IraqWithdrawal would make it easier for an over-stretched America to focus on a broader anti-terrorism strategy, aimed at building democracies and promoting human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere. Getting all the CIA's Arabic speakers back from Baghdad's Green Zone would also allow restructured US intelligence agencies to concentrate on preventing future terrorist attacks.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow for anti-terrorism effortsWithdrawing from Iraq would allow US to focus on counter-terrorism00300030no
157
Withdrawing from IraqWithdrawal would make it easier for an over-stretched America to focus on a broader anti-terrorism strategy, aimed at building democracies and promoting human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere. Getting all the CIA's Arabic speakers back from Baghdad's Green Zone would also allow restructured US intelligence agencies to concentrate on preventing future terrorist attacks.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow US to focus on anti-terrorism.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow US to focus on terrorism-12100120no
158
Withdrawing from IraqAlthough the constitution and formation of a legitimate government are major achievements, there is still much work to do. Sunni Arabs have to be convinced that the new settlement is in their interests and be drawn into government. This requires that they, and others, are convinced that the Iraqi government will stand the test of time, which requires the support of the US both politically and militarily.The Iraqi Arabs are not yet convinced that the new government is viable.The new Iraqi government needs to be supported politically1003-1210no
159
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)"Withdrawing" from Iraq mobilizes troopsDefeating Iraq is the first time US soldiers have publicly supported it01200030no
160
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)"Withdrawing" from Iraq mobilizes troopsIraqis have called for the United States to leave01200021no
161
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)Iraqis have called for the United States to leaveDefeating Iraq is the first time US soldiers have publicly supported it00300030no
162
Withdrawing from IraqWhen Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, it provided the president with the authorization to go to war in Iraq. This authorization provided the president with the authority to prosecute the War in Iraq to its conclusion, and it continues to offer this authorization.The Bush administration authorized the war in IraqCongress gave the authorization for the 2003 Iraq War.10031102no
163
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Rapid withdrawal would be risky to US troopsWithdrawing from Iraq would be risky.01110111no
164
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky for troopsWithdrawing from Iraq would not harm soldiers10031003no
165
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky to troops.Rapid withdrawal would be risky to US troops00211012no
166
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would risk the lives of troopsWithdrawing from Iraq would not risk the lives of troops10031102no
167
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky to troops.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky to troop lives00300120no
168
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Removing from Iraq would be risky to the lives of troopsWithdrawing from Iraq would be risky to the lives of troops0021-1210no
169
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky for troopsKeeping troops in Iraq is risky.10030111no
170
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq would not be dangerous to troopsWithdrawing from Iraq would not risk the lives of troops01110111no
171
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq is risky.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky to troop lives00300030no
172
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq is risky.Withdrawing from Iraq would be risky to the lives of troops01110021no
173
Withdrawing from IraqIt is odd to argue that a rapid withdraw would be risky to the lives of troops. Keeping them in Iraq is obviously risky, and particularly if it is extended over many years.Withdrawing from Iraq is risky.Removing from Iraq would be risky to the lives of troops01201012no
174
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)Opponents of a US troop withdrawal from Iraq are vocal.An organized group of US military personnel opposes the Iraq war.10031012no
175
Withdrawing from IraqFor the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)An anti-war movement has emerged in Iraq, calling for withdrawalAn increasing number of US troops are seeking to withdraw from Iraq.00300120no
176
Withdrawing from IraqWithdrawal would make it easier for an over-stretched America to focus on a broader anti-terrorism strategy, aimed at building democracies and promoting human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere. Getting all the CIA's Arabic speakers back from Baghdad's Green Zone would also allow restructured US intelligence agencies to concentrate on preventing future terrorist attacks.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow US to focus on counter-terrorismWithdrawing from Iraq would allow for anti-terrorism efforts00300030no
177
Withdrawing from IraqWhen Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, it provided the president with the authorization to go to war in Iraq. This authorization provided the president with the authority to prosecute the War in Iraq to its conclusion, and it continues to offer this authorization.The Bush administration authorized the war in IraqThe Iraq War authorized the use of military force-1300-1201no
178
Withdrawing from IraqWithdrawal would make it easier for an over-stretched America to focus on a broader anti-terrorism strategy, aimed at building democracies and promoting human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere. Getting all the CIA's Arabic speakers back from Baghdad's Green Zone would also allow restructured US intelligence agencies to concentrate on preventing future terrorist attacks.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow US intelligence to focus on terrorism.Withdrawing from Iraq would allow US to focus on anti-terrorism00210030no
179
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.Iraq could become a major oil source.Risk of civil war/conflict in Iraq:01110120no
180
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Iraq's continued presence in Iraq undermines its legitimacyUN authorization for continued presence in Iraq is invalid.10121012no
181
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Iraq's continued presence in Iraq undermines its legitimacyIf Iraq's current authorization expires on January 1, 2009 the UN has no legitimacy10030111no
182
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would undermine UN's legitimacyWithdrawing from Iraq would end the UN's legitimacy00211012no
183
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq after its current authorization expires.The UN has an obligation to withdraw from Iraq.-1300-1201no
184
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.If Iraq's current authorization expires on January 1, 2009 the UN has no legitimacyUN authorization for continued presence in Iraq is invalid.00211012no
185
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would invalidate UN's legitimacyWithdrawing from Iraq would end the UN's legitimacy00211012no
186
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would end the UN's legitimacyThe UN should not continue to support Iraq01200111no
187
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would invalidate UN's legitimacyWithdrawing from Iraq would undermine UN's legitimacy00300030no
188
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq undermines UN legitimacyUN authorization for coalition forces is already invalidated-1201-1201no
189
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would undermine its legitimacy.The UN has an obligation to withdraw from Iraq.11021102no
190
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.The UN has the legal authority to remain in IraqUN authorization for continued presence in Iraq is invalid.-1201-1201no
191
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would violate UN authorizationWithdrawing from Iraq would undermine UN legitimacy01110021no
192
Withdrawing from IraqAmerica and its allies should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda, and that he possessed weapons of mass destruction have both turned out to be incorrect, at best, and lies at worse. The war was an illegal act of aggression, without United Nations sanction, and the occupation is therefore also illegal. For this reason alone the coalition should remove its forces from Iraq as soon as possible.The invasion of Iraq was illegal and should not be continuedThe invasion of Iraq was illegal; a withdrawal is justified.00211012no
193
Withdrawing from IraqAmerica and its allies should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda, and that he possessed weapons of mass destruction have both turned out to be incorrect, at best, and lies at worse. The war was an illegal act of aggression, without United Nations sanction, and the occupation is therefore also illegal. For this reason alone the coalition should remove its forces from Iraq as soon as possible.The invasion of Iraq is illegal and should be stopped.The invasion of Iraq was illegal; the occupation is illegal.0021-1201no
194
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.Withdrawing from Iraq would violate international lawThe UN should not continue to support Iraq01111012no
195
Withdrawing from IraqThe UN has authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq. But, if it lets its current authorization expire on January 1, 2009 - as it is scheduled to - than it will have fully lost authorization and international legal legitimacy in Iraq, and should leave.UN authorization for coalition forces is already invalidatedThe UN has not authorized the continued presence of coalition forces in Iraq.01200111no
196
Withdrawing from IraqTo argue that the success of democracy in the Middle East and in the Muslim world depends on the results of the Iraq War, is to argue that democracy does not have its own inherent appeal. Democracy is, rather, the inherently best form of governance in the world. We must trust, therefore, that the Middle East and Muslims will come to adopt it for this reason, and irrespective of what happens in Iraq.Democracy is the inherently best form of governance in the worldIraq's defeat in the Middle East does not justify democracy-13001003no
197
Withdrawing from IraqTo argue that the success of democracy in the Middle East and in the Muslim world depends on the results of the Iraq War, is to argue that democracy does not have its own inherent appeal. Democracy is, rather, the inherently best form of governance in the world. We must trust, therefore, that the Middle East and Muslims will come to adopt it for this reason, and irrespective of what happens in Iraq.Success of democracy depends on success of Iraq War.Democracy is the best form of governance in the world.10030030no
198
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.Withdrawing from Iraq would risk global oil pricesWithdrawing from Iraq would cause oil price spikes1003-1201no
199
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.Withdrawing from Iraq would damage the global economyWithdrawing from Iraq could cause global oil price shock0111-1210no
200
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.Iraq's civil war could cause an oil price spikeIraq is a major risk to the global economy.-13001102no
201
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.Withdrawing from Iraq would cause oil price spikesWithdrawing from Iraq would risk global oil prices-13001102no
202
Withdrawing from IraqIf chaos ensues in Iraq, the risk is not simply that a civil war, genocide, and perhaps a regional conflict ensue. The added risk is that the main source of the world's oil becomes embroiled in this conflict, and that global oil prices spike significantly, shocking the global economy and causing a global recession.The risk of a civil war in Iraq is negligible.Withdrawing from Iraq would increase oil prices1003-1201no